HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES THIRD REGULAR SESSION
The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted a resolution on follow-up to the 2001 World Conference against Racism and the effective implementation of the its Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It also adopted a decision on conference facilities and financial support for the Council, and adopted its annual report to the General Assembly, before closing its third session.
In a resolution on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive follow-up to decisions of the Human Rights Council to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which was adopted by a vote of 33 in favour to 12 against with 1 abstention, the Council decided to heed the decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance by establishing an Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards.
Also this afternoon, the Council adopted a decision on conference facilities and financial support for the Human Rights Council, requesting the Secretary-General to report to the sixty-first session of the General Assembly at the earliest possible date on ways and means to guarantee the provision of conference services including interpretation, particularly for the holding of special sessions, additional meetings during regular sessions and organizational meetings; and an adequate funding mechanism to provide timely financing for unforeseen extraordinary expenses arising in the implementation of the decisions of the Council.
Many delegations regretted the decision by the Third Committee of the General Assembly to postpone consideration of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The General Assembly should live up to its commitment – the work of hundreds of Governments and indigenous representatives should be honoured, and the process brought to a positive end, delegations felt.
Before closing its third session, Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba said that, although there were still matters to be worked out, many important things had successfully been accomplished. The Council had been requested by the resolution of the General Assembly to strengthen the mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights by taking the positive and effective instruments of the former Commission on Human Rights and that was what it had done during the current session.
Speaking in the afternoon meeting were representatives of Algerian (on behalf of the African Group), Finland (on behalf of the European Union), India, Argentina, Japan, Switzerland, Peru, China, Canada, Russian Federation, United States of America, Ecuador, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Norway, Mexico, Denmark, Guatemala, Jordan and Spain.
The Council's fourth session would be held in Geneva next year, over the course of four weeks, from 12 March to 5 April 2007.
Action on Resolution on Global Efforts to Eliminate Racism and Follow-Up to Durban World Conference against Racism
In a resolution (A/HRC/3/L.3) on Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive follow-up to decisions of the Human Rights Council to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, as orally amended, adopted with 33 in favour, 12 against, and one abstention (Ukraine), the Council decides to heed the decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance by establishing an Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, with the mandate to elaborate, as a matter of priority and necessity, complementary standards in the form of either a convention or additional protocol(s) to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, filling the existing gaps in the Convention and also providing new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (33): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Against (12): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
Abstention (1): Ukraine.
IDRISS JAZAIRY Algeria, on behalf of the African Group, introduced draft resolution A/HRC/3/L.3, noting that there had been a constructive discussion on the resolution. The African Group wished to demonstrate flexibility in the hope that this would lead to a consensus adoption of the document. There had been two sets of concerns. One had to do with the danger of overlap in the functions of the Working Group and the Ad Hoc Committee whose creation was being recommended. There was also the issue of when the Working Group would effectively complete its task, and when it would be appropriate for the Ad Hoc Committee to be set up. Some language had been added which made it clear that the latter would not start to meet until the Working Group had completed its task, even if that meant postponing the beginning of the operations of the work of the committee. The speaker then read out oral amendments to the resolution.
SATU MATTILA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in explanation of vote before the vote, reiterated the European Union's commitment to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. They underscored the importance of reaching agreement on the follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action by consensus. They continued to underline that the follow-up was assured through the work of other instruments such as the intergovernmental group.
Finland regrettably had to cast a negative vote. The creation of an Ad Hoc Committee on elaboration of complementary standards before there was a well-understood basis for a decision on the substance to be covered by those standards was not the proper way to go forward on such an important matter. In addition, it objected to the explicit mention of the issue of incitement to racial and religious hatred, which seemed to prejudge the identification of gaps that would lead to the drafting of an international instrument.
RAJIV CHANDER (India), in an explanation of vote before the vote, said that India was committed to the elimination of racism and racial discrimination. It had taken part in all meetings and had contributed to actions aimed at fighting racism and racial discrimination. India had actively participated in the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban and attached high importance to the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. India had supported all initiatives relating to the follow-up of the Durban Conference undertaken in the framework of various human rights mechanisms. As a traditional supporter of such resolutions pertaining to the fight against racism and racial discrimination, India would vote in favour of the text.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), in an explanation of vote before the vote, said it was important to foster the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and therefore, Argentina had drawn up a national programme on elimination of racial discrimination.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said that Japan gave great importance to the fight against racism. Japan had some concerns over the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee, as it was not the right time to do so. A team of experts had been set up; therefore, the Human Rights Council should wait for the submission of their work. It should not pre-empt the paper to be presented by the group of experts. In consequence, they had voted against the resolution.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland), in an explanation of vote after the vote, said his delegation was opposed to the resolution because it seemed imply that incitement to religious and racial hatred should be the subject of a new international norm. That was to prejudge the work of the expert group and the conclusions they would draw on the matter. He also stressed that Switzerland judged it premature to create a sixth mechanism to follow-up on the Durban Conference before the present intergovernmental working group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action had had a chance to pronounce itself. That group would have been capable of continuing its work on the issue, at least up until next Fall.
ELIANA BERAUN (Peru), in an explanation of vote after the vote, said Peru was committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, and this was why it had voted in favour of the resolution. The work of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was appreciated. A decision of this importance should have been adopted by consensus.
Action on Decision on Conference Facilities and Financial Support for the Council
In a decision (A/HRC/3/L.7) on Conference facilities and financial support for
the Human Rights Council, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council requests the Secretary-General to report to the sixty-first session of the General Assembly at the earliest possible date on ways and means to guarantee the provision of: conference services including interpretation, particularly for the holding of special sessions, additional meetings during regular sessions and organizational meetings; and an adequate funding mechanism to provide timely financing for unforeseen extraordinary expenses arising in the implementation of the decisions of the Council.
LA YIFAN (China), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said with reference to conference facilities and financial support for the Human Rights Council, that General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 had given the Council a number of important missions to carry out, including setting up institutional arrangements. In consequence, the Council should be provided with the adequate support resources to fulfil its obligations. In requesting the General Assembly for further assistance, the Council had in turn the responsibility of improving its efficiency. China appreciated the quality of work of the Secretariat serving the Human Rights Council during the regular and also additional meetings the Council had held. An increase in the budget should not adversely affect other important areas the Council was entrusted to deal with. China would not stand in the way of adopting this resolution by consensus.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Canada, as bilingual country, was committed to multilingualism within the United Nations. The Council was one of the flagships of UN reform efforts. The broader implications of those proposals, including on other subsidiary organs and bodies, should be taken into account. One should not re-open important UN management reforms that had imposed necessary fiscal discipline on UN bodies, such as the prohibition of evening and night sessions by subsidiary bodies.
SATU MATTILA (Finland), on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of vote after the vote, said the efforts made by the President to address this important issue and create consensus were appreciated. Adequate provisions should be made with regard to conference services, so that multilingualism within the United Nations was fully respected. Adequate funding for the regular budget should be provided with regard to unexpected or extraordinary demands upon it. The task belonged to the Budgetary Group of the Fifth Committee to oversee the issue. The resolution was timely.
GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation), speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said the Russian Federation supported the statements made with reference to the resolution adopted. It was important for the proper functioning of the Human Rights Council to ensure adequate financial support of its work. The Russian Federation was of the view that it was also the responsibility of the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly to deal with this matter concerning subsidiary bodies of the General Assembly.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Algeria endorsed the statements made by China and Canada. The meetings aimed for the protection of human rights should be given importance. Issues on the same subject should not be repeated in formal and informal meetings. From the human resources point of view, such situations might prove exasperating.
Statements on Resolutions Before the Council at Its Third Session
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States of America), in a general comment on previous action, said the human suffering on both sides of the Lebanon-Israel border was a serious concern of the United States Government, and was a tragedy. The Council had reacted in August with a one-sided and unfair resolution aimed at Israel, and had compounded that with the Commission of Inquiry that only investigated Israel, and involved itself in issues that were outside the mandate of the Council. The Council continued within its flawed mandate, rewarding an armed non-State actor, namely Hezbollah, with that resolution. Hezbollah had put civilians in harm's way, and had deliberately done that to camouflage its actions. The United States supported Lebanon’s democratically elected Government and people, and would help with reconstruction. The Council should examine all sides of the question, so as to live up to its mandate to protect and promote human rights on both sides of the conflict, and to advance the cause of peace.
GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) said, with reference to the draft resolution that was postponed dealing the rights of indigenous peoples, that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had been transmitted to the General Assembly for consideration. As there was a stalemate in New York, Ecuador did not consider it appropriate to reopen the text at this stage. They had worked for many years in drafting this Declaration. Ecuador had reiterated its spirit of cooperation and flexibility to ensure the success of that process of negotiation. Ecuador was of the view that the Human Rights Council should send a clear signal to the international community and to the United Nations of the importance of the Declaration in the promotion and protection of human rights of indigenous peoples.
FAISAL NIAZ TIRMIZI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said they welcomed the setting up of the new inquiry commission on Beit Hanoun and wanted to know the timeframe for the members to leave for the Middle East.
ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said that the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples was of key importance to Norway, as it affected not only the lives of the indigenous peoples in Norway, but the population as a whole. The adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly would strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide, and the decision to put this off was greatly disappointing. The General Assembly should live up to its commitment – the work of hundreds of Governments and indigenous representatives should be honoured, and the process brought to a positive end.
ADELFO REGINO MONTES (Mexico) said that Mexico viewed with great hope the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. An important step had been taken in adopting the Declaration to put an end to the suffering of indigenous peoples. The consideration of the Declaration had been postponed while the rights of indigenous peoples continued to be violated. It called upon members to call upon the General Assembly to urgently deal with the Declaration and adopt it.
CARLOS CHOCANO (Peru) said Peru would remain committed to the cause of the indigenous peoples who had been persecuted in many countries. The nations of the world should ensure that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was now in New York, was adopted without delay.
MARIE LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) said the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had been mentioned by several delegations, and Denmark strongly supported those rights, including the participation of indigenous peoples in the work of the Council. It was disappointing the Third Committee had not seen its way to progressing on the issue. The human rights of indigenous peoples continued to be an important part of the work of the Council, and it was hoped the General Assembly would adopt the Declaration at its sixty-first session.
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) expressed deep disappointment over the postponement of the consideration of the Declaration in New York. Guatemala was committed to the enhancement of the rights of indigenous peoples nationally and internationally. It was an important instrument, as the Declaration had been prepared with the full participation of indigenous peoples and set up minimum standards for the respect of their rights.
MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said that Jordan had abstained when a resolution on the indigenous peoples had been adopted. Following today’s reaction on the issue by many delegations in the room, he would bring the issue back to the attention of his Government for further consideration.
SILVIA ESCOBAR (Spain) expressed Spain's commitment to the Declaration and the cause of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples had fully participated throughout the long negotiation process. Spain urged the General Assembly to urgently deal with the adoption of the Declaration.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had not yet been adopted by the General Assembly, and it was hoped that it would be adopted soon by a majority of nations.
Concluding Statement by the President of the Council
LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA, President of the Council, said the Council had been working hard by combining substantive issues with a focus on institution-building. The Council had also dealt with highly topical and substantive issues. Although there were still matters to be worked out, many important things had successfully been accomplished. The Council had been requested by the resolution of the General Assembly to strengthen the mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights by taking the positive and effective instruments of the former Commission on Human Rights. For that reason a number of documents had been approved by the Council with regard to a series of human rights mechanisms. It was also important to underscore the achievements made in a positive manner. The Council was starting a new phase of institution-building and should continue to deal with other issues as well. It was also important to note that major achievements had been made without excluding any one from participating in the process.
The President said he deeply regretted that the Third Committee had adopted a decision not favouring the Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Council had acted with great responsibility with regard to the Declaration, which it had adopted during its first session. It had also the obligation to follow up its decision. It was also important to act on issues that united the Council rather than divided it.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC06087E