HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF OPINION AND ARBITRARY DETENTION

The Human Rights Council at a midday meeting discussed the reports of its Special Procedures on the freedom of religion or belief, the freedom of opinion and expression, and on arbitrary detention.

Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief, said many of the allegations she had heard were alarming, yet there were also initiatives by Governments and civil society which were creative and capable of diffusing religious tensions. Preventive measures were a crucial tool in promoting religious tolerance and challenging the forces of intolerance. Torture by State agents was occurring aimed at making people abandon their faith. Governments turned a blind eye to threats meted out to lawyers. Women suffered from humiliation in the name of religion. Imposition or prohibition of dress codes for women was widely reported. In some countries women were denied education, jobs or government services for wearing a religious symbol. In some countries prison staff were not sensitive to spiritual needs of prisoners. Some beliefs were not recognized or religious practices disallowed, while prison staff misused their authority by forcing prisoners to violate their beliefs.

Ambeyi Ligabo, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a significant indicator of the level of protection and respect of all other human rights in a given society; not only did it benefit from a democratic environment, but it also contributed, and was indeed instrumental, to the emergence and existence of effective democratic systems. The exercise of a specific human rights could sometimes be in conflict with the enjoyment of other rights, however, individual freedoms and fundamental rights should be seen as a multi-dimensional yet indivisible component of a social life: in a democratic society, the real challenge was their coherent implementation in a situation of constant equilibrium. While all rights should be equally respected, the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carried with it special duties and responsibilities. It required good judgement, tolerance, and a sense of responsibility.

Leila Zerrougui, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said the Working Group was the only non-treaty-based human rights mechanism whose mandate expressly provided for the consideration of individual complaints. The Working Group noted with great concern that there was a trend in the context of the international transfer of detainees suspected of terrorism to seek guarantees that detention would continue in the country of destination, even in the absence of an adequate legal basis. In its report, the Working Group provided States with a number of recommendations, including urging States to credit time spent in pre-trial detention towards the sentence to be served, to release without delay detainees acquitted in their trial of first instance, and to review their legislation with a view to establishing or enlarging the scope of alternatives to deprivation of liberty as a sanction for criminal offences. Governments should not engage in so-called “renditions”.

Speaking as concerning countries were Azerbaijan, Maldives, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Turkey.

Statements provided in the interactive dialogue were presented by Morocco, Cuba, Angola, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Albania, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, India, Russian Federation, Australia for Canada and New Zealand, Germany on behalf of the European Union, Belarus, Georgia, Canada for Australia and New Zealand, Switzerland, Indonesia, Bangladesh, United States, Uzbekistan, Netherlands, Djibouti, Czech Republic, Sudan, Republic of Korea, Italy, Sovereign Order of Malta, Finland, Cambodia, Armenia, Australia and Norway

The Human Rights Council is meeting today non-stop from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. When the afternoon meeting starts immediately after 3 p.m., the Council is scheduled to conclude its interactive dialogue on the reports on freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and on arbitrary detention. It will then hear the presentation of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Chairperson of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. It will also take action on draft resolutions and decisions.

Reports before the Council

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir (A/HRC/4/21 and Add.1-3), which sets out activities carried out under the mandate since the submission of the last report (E/CN.4/2006/5, see below). Among other things, the Special Rapporteur carried out two visits, to Azerbaijan and to the Maldives, and travelled to the Vatican where she held consultations with representatives of the Holy See. Chapter II takes stock of 20 years of mandate experience, with a critical appraisal of the 1981 Declaration; an analysis of the role of the Special Rapporteur; and a proposal for an online digest of the framework for communications. Chapter III focuses on several issues of concern to the Special Rapporteur's mandate, including the vulnerable situation of women, violations linked to counter-terrorism measures, and the situation of religious minorities and new religious movements. In a final chapter, the Special Rapporteur concludes that the protection of freedom of religion or belief and the implementation of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief is far from being a reality. She emphasizes that there is an urgent need to eliminate the root causes of intolerance and discrimination and to remain vigilant with regard to freedom of religion or belief worldwide.

Addendum 1 to the report gives an account of communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur between 1 December 2005 and 30 November 2006, as well as replies received from Governments by 30 January 2007 and observations of the Special Rapporteur, where appropriate. Addendum 2 details a country visit to Azerbaijan, which stresses that in Azerbaijan there is generally a high level of religious tolerance and real religious harmony. However, that respect is not uniformly observed in all regions of Azerbaijan and, in a few cases, the control exercised by the authorities has unfortunately been transformed into real forms of persecution. A third addendum sets out findings from a mission to Maldives, where the Special Rapporteur notes the otherwise welcome concept of national unity appears to have become inextricably linked to that of religious unity, and even religious homogeny. In this regard, she expresses her concern about a number of de jure and de facto limitations on the right to freedom of religion or belief in the Maldives, and provides a detailed set of conclusions and recommendations to address them.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir (E/CN.4/2006/5), which sets out the activities that have been carried out under the mandate since the submission of the last report to the Commission (E/CN.4/2005/61). It summarizes the communications sent, as well as in situ visits completed during the period under review to Nigeria, Sri Lanka and France. A total of 84 communications were sent to 36 different countries during the period from 12 November 2004 to 30 November 2005. In the second section of the report, the Special Rapporteur introduces a framework on communications, which she has developed to enable her to send more precise communications, drawing the attention of the government concerned to the relevant international standards. In the third section, the Special Rapporteur examines, from an international human rights perspective, both the positive and the negative freedom of religion or belief of individual persons with regard to the wearing of religious symbols such as garments and ornaments. The fourth and final section of the report sets out the Special Rapporteur's conclusions and recommendations.

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Ambeyi Ligabo (A/HRC/4/27), which describes the activities of the Special Rapporteur during the past year, particularly urgent appeals, allegations letters, and press releases. It also analyses four subjects the Special Rapporteur considers of great interest for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The first is an account of his visit to Denmark, in which the Rapporteur gathered first-hand information and insights on the issue of the so-called "Danish Cartoons" with the aim of proposing some relevant conclusions and recommendations to the Human Rights Council. Subsequently, the Special Rapporteur focuses on the future establishment of an intergovernmental body dealing with Internet governance and its role in limiting commercial pressure on, inter alia, a human rights approach to Internet freedom. The Special Rapporteur also addresses the necessity of swift action from Governments and Parliaments in order to decriminalize defamation and related offences. Finally, the Special Rapporteur examines the most recent initiatives with regard to security and protection of journalists and media professionals, and their repercussion on the availability of independent information and opinion-making. In addition to the proposed study on this matter, the Special Rapporteur also launches the idea of a voluntary fund to provide financial relief to the families of journalists killed while performing their duties or because of their activities, especially in developing countries. In a final chapter, the Special Rapporteur takes stock of the situation of freedom of opinion and expression as a global phenomenon, invites countries to take ad hoc remedial action, and suggests the adoption of relevant national legislation in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian instruments, in particular on the four abovementioned subjects.

The Council has before it the report of the Working Group on arbitrary detention
by the Chairperson-Rapporteur, Leïla Zerrougui (A/HRC/4/40 and Add.1-5), in the first part of which the Working Group recalls its main activities during its 15 years of existence, including the thematic issues it dealt with in its reports and the countries it visited. The second part provides an overview of the Opinions issued by the Working Group in the course of 2006 on communications and urgent appeals. It also includes the reactions of Governments to these communications. It discusses the follow-up to the visits undertaken by the Working Group in 2004, to Belarus, China and Latvia. The third part of the report discusses the problem of arbitrary detention in the context of the international transfer of detainees, particularly in efforts to counter terrorism, an issue of growing concern. The Working Group argues that both human rights law and the anti-terror conventions adopted under the auspices of the UN enshrine a clear preference for extradition as the legal framework for such transfers. The practice of so-called "renditions", because it is aimed at avoiding all procedural safeguards, is not compatible with international law. The fourth part of the report discusses concerns of the Working Group that have arisen in the context of its recent country visits, including: insufficiency of resources allocated to the penitentiary system and the resulting failure to protect prisoners’ rights; excessive recourse to and duration of pre-trial detention; infringements of the right to an effective defence caused by conditions of detention; and insufficient funding of legal aid programmes. On the basis of the matters discussed, the Working Group makes recommendations aimed at both preventing arbitrary detention in the context of the international transfer of detainees and reducing the duration of remand detention.

A first addendum to the report contains the Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention between November 2005 and August 2006.

A second addendum describes the Working Group's trip to Ecuador, where most of the people interviewed complained that they had been in pre-trial detention without ever being brought before a judge, and it was observed that at some police stations and pre-trial detention centres women were being detained together with men. Among other things, urgent measures appear necessary to ensure that any violation of detainees’ human rights is immediately and properly investigated and that any official or employee found responsible is subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

The Working Group's mission to Nicaragua, where it visited eight custodial facilities, is detailed in Addendum 3. Positive elements include Nicaragua's efforts to comply with international standards and to ensure protection for human rights in the criminal justice system, and work being carried out relating to the detention of minors. But areas of concern remain, such as the growing trend of failure to comply in practice with the conditions and time limits stipulated in the new criminal procedural law.

Addendum 4 details the Working Group's visits to Honduras, where it noted reforms have put Honduras in a much better position to respect and ensure the rights of persons under its jurisdiction not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty. Still, there are serious shortcomings within the system of legal aid for indigent defendants and insufficient monitoring of the police during the course of the criminal justice process. The establishment of a specific, professionally staffed penitentiary system separate from the police is recommended.

A Working Group visit to Turkish detention centres is set out in Addendum 5, which observes that both the criminal justice system and the penitentiary system in Turkey are well organized, well administered and well funded. The report expresses concern, however, with regard to the prosecution, trial and detention of terrorism suspects in Turkey.

Presentation of Reports on Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Opinion and Arbitrary Detention

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief, said many of the allegations she had heard were alarming, yet there were also initiatives by Governments and civil society which were creative and capable of diffusing religious tensions. Preventive measures were a crucial tool in promoting religious tolerance and challenging the forces of intolerance. Torture by State agents was occurring aimed at making people abandon their faith. Governments turned a blind eye to threats meted out to lawyers. Women suffered from humiliation in the name of religion. Imposition or prohibition of dress codes for women was widely reported. In some countries women were denied education, jobs or government services for wearing a religious symbol. In some countries prison staff were not sensitive to spiritual needs of prisoners. Some beliefs were not recognized or religious practices disallowed, while prison staff misused their authority by forcing prisoners to violate their beliefs.

Ms. Jahangir welcomed cooperation from the Governments that had provided it. Some responded comprehensively, others pointed out that the information she had received was misleading and she hoped they would invite her to visit the countries themselves. Other responses raised concerns, with Governments showing inappropriate attitudes or denying that detainees were held because of their religion. Country visits were a second pillar of the Special Rapporteur’s activities. She mentioned the 25 country visits undertaken during the mandate. In Azerbaijan, where religious tolerance and harmony was shown to be good, there were nonetheless concerns over the blurring of the line in some cases between facilitation of religious rights and control of them. Some religious communities had been fearful of meeting with her during her visit, and this was worrying. In the Maldives, national unity was a highly prized issue, but there were concerns that national unity was becoming inextricably linked to religious unity, with only Muslims enjoying full citizenship rights. She had visited Tajikistan and intended to visit the United Kingdom in 2007.

Thematic studies at international meetings gave the mandate the chance to address issues in detail. She had been involved in preparing a report on the promotion of racial and religious tolerance for the Human Rights Council last year. She recommended Governments to show firm political will and commitment to combating the rise of racial and religious intolerance. There had been allegations of hate speeches in certain countries, although not all reached the threshold of article 20 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. But this was a warning sign that should be heeded. There were various legal sources detailing the right to freedom of religion or belief. The “framework of communications” was one tool used to determine which elements of the mandate were implicated so as to send more tailored communications. There was progress in availability of information, notably an online digest currently in development. What was needed was a capacity of political and religious leaders to react to intolerance in a balanced manner. Balanced and proportionate responses were necessary because extreme measures only bred further extremism.

AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a significant indicator of the level of protection and respect of all other human rights in a given society; not only did it benefit from a democratic environment, but it also contributed, and was indeed instrumental, to the emergence and existence of effective democratic systems. The exercise of a specific human rights could sometimes be in conflict with the enjoyment of other rights, however, individual freedoms and fundamental rights should be seen as a multi-dimensional yet indivisible component of a social life: in a democratic society, the real challenge was their coherent implementation in a situation of constant equilibrium. Consolidation and development of democracy increasingly relied upon the existence and the extent of freedom of expression, which was essential for the progress of human knowledge, tolerance, and mutual understanding. Freedom of media, especially the press, was essential for the functioning of truly representative democracies.

Mr. Ligabo said regrettably, repressive machineries were speedily adapting new technologies, which were often used as tools for political propaganda and conduits for racial discrimination and hate speech. Together with a constant trend towards the polarisation of ideas and ethnic tension, the systematic oppression of the most active supporters of the free circulation of information and opinions continued to remain an issue of concern throughout the world. The quest for international legal norms on the safety of media professionals should be taken into account with a greater sense of responsibility by the international human rights community. The killing of media professionals should be integrated into international legislation on war and war crimes. In the report was a draft outline of themes to be developed in a study on safety of journalists.

Another subject, which was one of the major obstacles for the exercise of freedom of expression, was censorship, with regards to which the overall situation remained gloomy, Mr. Ligabo said. Censorship was on the rise, often reappearing in forms that had been believed buried. The exercise of freedom of speech should always be guaranteed for the examination of historical events. Unlimited freedom of expression, usually invoked by influential media concentrations, often masked support for discriminatory policies and other ills. While all rights should be equally respected, the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carried with it special duties and responsibilities. It required good judgement, tolerance, and a sense of responsibility. Increasing access to information would also support the development of initiatives aimed at monitoring the implementation of the right to information.

LEILA ZERROUGUI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said the official visits to Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Turkey carried out in the course of the year 2006 brought the total numbers of countries the Working Group had visited since its establishment to 21. The Working Group had also formulated deliberations and legal opinions on matters of general nature, and legal opinions on allegations of arbitrary detention ordered by the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, as well as on the deprivation of liberty of persons detained at Guantanamo Bay. During its fifteen years of existence, the Working Group had dealt with a number of issues. It was the only non-treaty-based human rights mechanism whose mandate expressly provided for the consideration of individual complaints. The Working Group noted with great concern that there was a trend in the context of the international transfer of detainees suspected of terrorism to seek guarantees that detention would continue in the country of destination, even in the absence of an adequate legal basis.

Ms. Zerrougui said in its report, the Working Group provided States with a number of recommendations, including urging States to credit time spent in pre-trial detention towards the sentence to be served, to release without delay detainees acquitted in their trial of first instance, and to review their legislation with a view to establishing or enlarging the scope of alternatives to deprivation of liberty as a sanction for criminal offences. Governments should not engage in so-called “renditions”. In the four country visits, to Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Turkey, the four Governments concerned cooperated fully, and all four visits took place in respect for the Working Group’s terms of reference and pre-established working methods.

With regards to Ecuador, the report identified as the main issue of concern the so-called “in firme” detention, making remand detention mandatory for all accused for whom after investigation a trial was ordered, Ms. Zerrougui said. For Nicaragua, the Working Group was concerned about the disproportionate severity of criminal penalties handed down for offences relating to the use and sale of narcotics. With regards for Honduras, there was concern for two specific categories of detainees: the first those who were already detained when the new criminal procedure code entered into force four and a half years ago, the second group being the members of violent youth gangs. As far as Turkey was concerned, the report expressed concern with regard to the prosecution, trial and detention of terrorism suspects, in which the reform process appeared to find it difficult to gain a foothold.

Statements by Concerned Countries

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), speaking as a concerned country, said that Azerbaijan wanted to thank Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir for her visit to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan attached great importance to the intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. Azerbaijan, with a predominantly Muslim population, had always been committed to the principles of equality among all citizens. The Special Rapporteur’s general conclusion in the report on her visit to Azerbaijan stated that Azerbaijan was a country where there was a high level and undisputable tolerance, which was the inherent feature of the Azerbaijani population. Problems faced by the religious communities were regularly investigated and governmental agencies rendered necessary assistance to solve them. However, problems did exist and Azerbaijan was aware of them. The Government accepted some concerns reflected in the report and believed that they occurred mainly due to the lack of professionalism by some officials while other concerns were based on sometimes inaccurate information by the religious communities and other actors.

Azerbaijan wished to give some substantial comments on the report. Concerning the tension that existed between the State Committee on the Work with Religious Associations and the Caucasus Muslim Board, the Committee and the Board had decided to conduct joint activity to further improve the religious situation in the country. With regard to the assumption in the report that the Government controlled the mass media, Azerbaijan had to disagree. In addition, the country wanted to stress that as far as some acts of religious intolerance contained in the report were concerned, on the one hand, some of them took place mainly due to the inappropriate behaviour by some officials and on the other, representatives of the non-traditional religious communities had systematically been in conflict with the current national legislation.

HASSAN SOBIR (Maldives), speaking as a concerned country, said the Government of the Maldives warmly welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, which made a balanced assessment of freedom of religion in the Maldives, and made a number of important and useful recommendations for future improvement. The report and its findings and recommendations were being studied carefully. The Maldives was currently embarked on a sweeping programme of constitutional, democratic and human rights reform, guided by the Roadmap for the Reform Agenda. When completed, the Reform Agenda would engineer a political transformation to match the economic and social developments achieved by the country over the past thirty years. The objective of this political reform programme was clear: to create a model democracy in the Maldives, founded upon the protection and promotion of human rights.

The visit of the Special Rapporteur was the first to be carried out by a Special Procedures mandate-holder, and followed the Government’s decision to extend an open invitation to all United Nations Special Procedures to visit the country. The Government was therefore pleased that the Special Rapporteur’s report recognised and welcomed the steps taken by the Government to engage with the international community and in particular to cooperate with the Special Procedures. The current challenge facing the Maldives was to preserve its identity and unity while at the same time striving to conform to international standards and ensuring that laws and practices did not discriminate against other religions. With this challenge in mind, the Government welcomed the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, and committed itself to carefully examine them over the coming months.

CARLOS SANTOS (Ecuador), speaking as a concerned country, said that it wanted to thank the Working Group on arbitrary detention for the report on the visit to Ecuador that took place in February 2006. Ecuador wished to stress the acknowledgment of the country’s efforts in the field of special mechanisms. Ecuador wanted to establish the best form of mechanisms to guarantee the rule of law. Ecuador in its permanent collaboration with other United Nations bodies opened the doors for further visits. Arbitrary detention had been considered to be unconstitutional and had therefore been abolished. It was in the interest of the country to work on the legal process and human rights systems to put in place better conditions for detainees. Ecuador acknowledged the importance of the reporting mechanism and estimated that this should be maintained as a monitoring mechanism given the conditions of incarceration.

ALICIA MARTIN GALLEGOS (Nicaragua), speaking as a concerned country, said the report of the Working Group on arbitrary detention was welcomed. As stated in the report, since the entry into force of the Political Constitution in 1987, Nicaragua had seen important changes of its judicial system, and the democratic functioning of the State, as well as the protection of human rights. The Working Group had noted that Nicaragua was one of the few countries in Latin America where the numbers of prisoners awaiting trial was below those sentenced. It had also noted the programmes with regards to the detention of minors. Among other achievements in the framework of the strengthening and renewal of the penitentiary system was training for prisoners as part of their reintegration.

On recommendations in the report, the Government of Nicaragua was injecting further resources into programmes to combat crime and violence, including programmes which respected human rights, and a training programme for the police, with emphasis on assistance rights and the need for prisoners to be under the control of judges, as set out in the law. Improved registration in police stations had also been put in place. Regarding the heavy penalties for the consumption and sale of narcotics, Nicaragua believed these were linked to national security, and were closely linked to organised transnational crime.

SAGRARIO PRUDOTT (Honduras), speaking as a concerned country, welcomed the report of the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the visit to Honduras, which took place in May 2006. Honduras considered the recommendations from the report to be very useful. Honduras wanted to refer to the conclusions of the report. A great deal of changes were taking place in the country. Two bills had been put forward, pointing at reforms in the policy and the penal system. With regard to the prison system, civil servants administered the system. The need for reintegration of prisoners was stressed. There were also reforms of the police act that took place and the public monitoring of the police system. Honduras stated that the situation in prisons was also a concern for the Government of Honduras.

Together with other governments, an assessment of the prison population in Honduras had been established. A prison census had been conducted. With a view to the recommendations of the report, Honduras was going to continue to listen to them and put them into action. All prisoners subjected to arbitrary detention should be immediately released. Judges were in charge of monitoring prisons. There was also a free assistance service for prisoners. Concerning the recommendation of the need for rehabilitation and reintegration of gang members, it had been undertaken with a number of different institutions. Honduras wanted to continue to engage in a constructive dialogue.

AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey), speaking as a concerned country, said the report had been carefully examined, and all the views and recommendations would be duly taken into consideration by the relevant authorities. Since 2001, Turkey had initiated a far-reaching reform process, and the impact of the legislative and structural reforms had been significant. Detention periods had been reduced, safeguards against torture and arbitrary practices had been strengthened. Regarding the restriction on the access to a lawyer in the Anti-Terror Law, this was an exceptional precautionary measure, taken by the Court, and such a court order remained subject to appeal.

With regards to the length of remand detention, the maximum duration of arrest for serious offences was two years, and under compelling circumstances this period could be extended to a total of three years. These periods would be doubled for terrorist crimes from April 2008 onwards. The report raised concerns regarding the legal framework for the residence of foreigners awaiting deportation. Measures aimed at strengthening the system and overcoming the shortcomings were currently under consideration, and the recommendations of the Working Group on this matter would be taken into account.

Interactive Dialogue on Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression and Arbitrary Detention

DRISS ISBAYENE (Morocco) said the Working Group on arbitrary detention had spoken of detention conditions and the situation of prisons – the prison system in Morocco had been modified, with legal structures brought into line with international standards as far as resources allowed. There were improved conditions for prisoners and social reintegration of released prisoners. A new law was adopted in line with minimum standards for detainees. Rights and dignity, nutrition and healthcare had improved. Non-discrimination and training and leisure had been developed. Complaints mechanisms were put in place. Practical steps had been taken to improve the situation in prisons and respect legal rights of prisoners. Prison capacity had been brought into line with international standards to limit overcrowding. There had been training on human rights for prison authorities and measures to prohibit torture, with active involvement of non-governmental organizations. Any violation of detainees’ rights would incur measures. There had been convictions of prison officials last year. Fair trial was guaranteed under law, including defence rights. Journalists, however, should not spread intolerance in Moroccan society.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) thanked the Chairperson of the Working Group on arbitrary detention. Cuba wanted to focus on one specific topic, although the whole spectrum of the mentioned topics was recognized. Cuba considered as essential the opinion 19/2005 on arbitrary detention, which affirmed the arbitrary detention of four young Cubans unfairly incarcerated in the United States. However, far from acting on the request from the Working Group, the Government of the United States had taken new steps to pursue the system of arbitrary detention. Women were refused the right to visit their husbands, for example. A manipulation of the judicial system could be noticed. The current Attorney General of the United States intervened in this decision in the Court of Atlanta. Cuba reaffirmed its request for the unconditional freedom for the five Cuban anti-terrorists activists that were arbitrarily detained in the United States. The Chairperson of the Working Group on arbitrary detention was also asked to meet the wives of the incarcerated Cubans.

ARCANJO DO NASCIMENTO (Angola) said Angola valued religious tolerance. No religion should be discriminated against and all faiths should receive equal and fair treatment before the law. There was a reference in the Special Rapporteur’s report concerning registration of religious entities – every religious entity was subject to the same registration requirement. There were more than 20 legally registered religious communities and all had to go through the same registration procedures. All Muslims in Angola were free to openly practice their religions without government or other interference. But requirements for the legal status of religious entities were clear under Angolan law. Places of worship were also subject to law, and any established without meeting the requirements could be shut down, as had happened with certain mosques.

BILAL HAYEE (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), emphasized that the OIC believed in the sanctity and supremacy of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in his report stressed that the right to freedom of expression entailed certain responsibilities, including the respect of the rights or reputations of others and the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or moral. The Special Rapporteur had emphasized in his report that the exercise of freedom of expression by media professionals demanded good judgment, rationality and a sense of responsibility.

The report further concluded that the use of stereotypes, labelling and insulting deep-rooted religious feelings were not conducive to creating an enabling environment for constructive dialogue among different communities. The OIC fully shared the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur and continue to make efforts at all levels, particularly in the human rights forum not to distort the concept of freedom of expression for extraneous and political reasons. The OIC encouraged the Special Rapporteur to draw broad guidelines that may help the media in building a code of ethics to better organize their work and to enjoy the right to freedom of expression and opinion in the proper context enshrined in the various international human rights instruments.

SEJDI QERIMAJ (Albania) said in reference to Ms. Jahangir’s report that religious tolerance had always been among the precious values of Albanian society. There had never been any religious discrimination conflict or disagreement in Albania, but the complexity of differences in the twenty-first century placed great challenges before the international community. Albania had made a commitment to defend tolerance against all provocations. The bringing together of people, cultures and religions should be a central issue for all. The Special Rapporteur had noted that the Declaration on Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief was far from being implemented in many parts of the world. In consequence, concerning illegal conversions mentioned in the report, could Ms. Jahangir explain the exact circumstances behind these, and what laws were there to condemn these? Prohibiting women and girls from wearing symbols or clothes associated with certain religions was also mentioned in her report. Could she give details of any cases where these rights were guaranteed in public and private establishments?

MOGENS SCHMIDT, of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that UNESCO, as the only United Nations agency with a particular mandate to defend the free flow of information, had been actively engaged in efforts to improve press freedom and its corollary, freedom of expression. Freedom of press was, after all, an application of the individual human rights principle of freedom of expression. UNESCO recognized that press freedom was central to building strong democracies, contributing to good governance, promoting civic participation and the rule of law, and encouraging human development and security. As such, UNESCO was committed to mobilizing efforts to promote freedom of expression and press freedom as a basic right indispensable to the exercise of democratic citizenship.

The principle of freedom of expression was one of the four basic principles of UNESCO’s concept of knowledge societies, together with universal access to information and knowledge, respect for cultural and linguistic diversity and quality education for all. No society could achieve stability or prosperity without access to information and the right to voice one’s opinion without fear of reprisal. UNESCO would this year focus its celebration of World Press Freedom Day, which would take place in Medellin, Colombia in May 2007, on the safety of journalists and on the impunity that unfortunately still ruled in this field.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said true respect for all religions came only from genuine respect for democracy, tolerance and pluralism. India had no official religion but was a secular State, with a Constitution guaranteeing rights to all citizens, without discrimination. Every religious denomination had the right to establish and maintain its institutions, acquire property, and manage its own affairs. Equally, the rights of those with no religion were guaranteed. The Special Rapporteur had noted the link between education and religious tolerance. India had taken several measures to safeguard secular values, and education sought to further the goals of secularism and democracy. No religious instruction could be imparted in State institutions, and no person attending State institutions could be compelled to take part in religious instruction. The Special Rapporteur had touched on the importance of religious and racial hatred, and India took note of her recommendations on legislation designed to combat religious hatred that could constitute incitement to religious hostility or violence, and also on the issue of legislation against so-called “hate speech” and the problems associated with such legislation.

GALINA KHVAN (Russian Federation) expressed the appreciation of the Russian Federation for the reports by the Special Procedures. They were considered as balanced and objective. With the guidelines, a framework had been set for improving cooperation between the Special Rapporteur, Governments and civil society. Still the right of freedom of expression was not observed universally. What was the role of non-state actors concerning the freedom of belief? In addition, concerning the increase of sectarian bodies, was this a direct threat to the right of freedom of religion and belief? The Special Rapporteur was asked whether she wanted to address this issue. Russia wanted also to praise the report of Mr. Ligabo. With regard to the well-known cartoon scandal, there was a need to observe the right of freedom of expression. Certain groups should not damage the rights of others.

ROBYN MUDIE (Australia), in a joint statement for Australia, Canada and New Zealand, noted numerous regional inter-faith dialogues in the Asia Pacific arena in which Australia had been involved, along with other Commonwealth States. These were an important forum for promoting peace, tolerance and understanding. Faith and community leaders had a key role to play in denying extremists any religious or moral legitimacy. Australia also planned to host the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 2009. Education, as a way of promoting religious tolerance, was a key area for Australia, Canada and New Zealand as a lasting way to prevent discrimination and promote tolerance. There were concerns about religious intolerance and extremism in many countries. There was deep concern over the treatment of minorities on the basis of their belief. The importance of defending religious tolerance could not be overstated. Australia, Canada and New Zealand, bilaterally and multilaterally, had been expressing their views on these, and would welcome views from the Special Rapporteur on how interfaith dialogue might assist in the promotion of religious intolerance.

ANDREAS BERG (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked Ms. Jahangir for her report. The European Union asked in which regions a positive trend could be depicted and if Governments did react positively to the requests of the Special Rapporteur. The European Union also asked about the regions where negative trends could be observed. A question was also raised on whether the Special Rapporteur was planning to request a visit to Eritrea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Uzbekistan. It was also asked what were the effective ways of how the Council could achieve the depolitization of issues related to religious belief. Concerning the report of Mr. Ligabo, the European Union wanted to know whether the Special Rapporteur could elaborate on his specific plans regarding the study he prepared on the issue of security and protection of journalists and other media professionals.

In addition, the European Union asked whether the Special Rapporteur could elaborate on the nature of the limitations of freedom of expression and name a few examples of hampering access to information through the Internet. The European Union also asked whether a visit to Zimbabwe was planned. With regard to the report from Ms. Zerrougui, the European Union asked whether the Special Rapporteur had examined this question in conjunction with other Special Rapporteurs that had already taken a view at the risks of human rights violations attached to policies aimed at combating terrorism. In addition, it asked about the number of cases of arbitrary detention during international transfers and about the measures suggested to safeguard international human rights obligations in international transfers of detainees. Finally, the European Union asked about the best practice the Special Rapporteur would recommend to States to deal with these shortfalls.

ANDREY TARANDA (Belarus), said the interactive dialogue was welcomed on the reports of the Special Procedures. On the activities of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, there was satisfaction at the cooperation Belarus had with the Working Group, which latter had visited Belarus. The Government of Belarus valued the interaction. The Working Group had pointed at positive efforts by Belarus to improve its court system, and made various recommendations, and these had been considered fully. Changes had been made, including the new Code on the Court System, which had entered into force in 2007, and which included the independence of judges. Administrative courts could be appealed against in the constitutional process.

The Republican Social Monitoring Commission had been established to monitor institutions in the present system. Belarus intended to continue to cooperate actively with the Working Group in all areas of its activities.

TAMAR TOMASHVILI (Georgia) said that non-state actors should also be held liable for violations of human rights. The former Special Rapporteur had raised this issue and had also expressed his concern about circumstances in which a Government did not have effective control over territory within its own boundaries. Georgia was concerned about the breakaway regions of Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia, Georgia, where the legitimate Government did not exercise effective control. There had been recent arrests by the Abkhaz authorities of persons involved in a peaceful protest and freely expressing their opinions on the so-called “parliamentary elections” there. These underlined the need for active international cooperation to engage proactively in the matter. There was also a need to seek inquiry on behalf of the Special Rapporteur into the case.

JOANNE LEVASSEUR (Canada), in a joint statement for Australia, Canada and New Zealand, said that the countries were strong proponents of the right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression, including freedom of expression of speech and a free media, was one of the pillars of democracy; it underlined and strengthened all other human rights. The countries shared the dismay of the Special Rapporteur at the disturbing number of journalists and media assistants that had been killed in 2006, not to mention those who had been arbitrarily imprisoned, harassed, threatened and made to disappear. Journalists paid the price for the lack of transparency, accountability and justice in a society.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand also commended the Special Rapporteur for the joint initiative undertaken with its counterparts from the Organization of American States, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights on the central role the press had been playing for the progression of democracy and human rights throughout the world. Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be interested in learning of any projects the Special Rapporteur was considering undertaking in order to advance discussions on this important issue and welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s views on other possible joint actions that could be undertaken in the future.

JEANNINE VOLKEN (Switzerland) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion, the report was excellent. The religious issue often played a crucial role in the prevention of conflicts and in the establishment of peace. Instrumentalised, religion could become a dangerous element of division; however, when the ethical bases on which all religions were founded were put forward, both in the guiding principles of human rights and of humanitarian law, religion could contribute effectively to reconciliation and peace.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was not limited to traditional religions or to religions that were institutionalised in the respective Constitutions of each country. In some countries, citizens had to indicate in their identity documents what religion they belonged to, even if they belonged to a religious minority or were atheists. What measures did the Special Rapporteur suggest in order to protect better the rights of religions minorities or atheists, the speaker asked?

BENNY YAN PIETER SIAHAAN (Indonesia), with regard to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of belief or religion, said Indonesia supported de-politicization of religious issues, but States should remain vigilant in the face of current global tensions. Indonesia concurred that freedom of religion was an important underogable right, one that fell within the responsibility of the Government to protect. The Government had an important role to play in furthering dialogue between faiths. Education should be promoted, but national anti-terrorism policies and similar security concerns could have an overriding importance on the sanctity of religions. Would a generalized ban be enough to prohibit propaganda or incitement?

On the promotion and protection of freedom of expression and opinion, Indonesia noted with concern the growing tensions between various factions on the right to express opinion without censorship. The Special Rapporteur here also made reference to freedom of religious belief and freedom from racial discrimination. He asked whether the lines between various mandates were becoming blurred, leaving them each susceptible to varying interpretations of relevant Special Procedures. The right to freedom of religion and the right to free expression were interlinked, and Indonesia asked how States could work to ensure these overlaps could be better coordinated.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report on the freedom of religion. Bangladesh was concerned about the increase of intolerance, violence and discrimination on religious grounds. Bangladesh wanted to underscore that people of all faiths should be protected to worship their beliefs. There was a growing tendency to defame religions in many parts of the world. Defamation constituted a violation of human rights. Growing Islamophobia was noted. This must be combated through the media, among other instruments. Bangladesh agreed with the Special Rapporteur that tolerance and understanding should be promoted. Migrants and refugees were often the victims of the violations of their rights of freedom of religion. The dialogue among civilisations was essential. All must strive to foster such a dialogue.

VELIA DE PIRRO (United States) said the Working Group on arbitrary detention was commended for commenting on the need for international cooperation to combat terrorism and on diplomatic assurances. As stated before, the United States firmly disagreed with the suggestion that persons held at Guantanamo Bay were being detained arbitrarily or unlawfully, however, the United States would like to move towards the day when it could close Guantanamo. It was incumbent upon the international community to assist the United States in accepting back their nationals, and on occasion third-country nationals, who were eligible for transfer or release.

The United States also disagreed with the Working Group on the issue of renditions, which were an established and permissible way for States to ensure that dangerous terrorists did not remain at large, but could only be used when important conditions were met, including that returnees would not be subject to torture. Did the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion believe that the promulgation of blasphemy law ran counter to religious freedom. Mr. Ligabo’s focus on Internet freedom was welcomed, and he should explain how the Council could help prevent threats to Internet freedom.

AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said Ms. Jahangir’s report was substantive and, in answer to the statement by Germany on behalf of the European Union, Uzbekistan was a multi-ethnic State with more than 2,000 religious organizations. Legislation was totally in keeping with international treaties on the prevention of religious intolerance or discrimination. Uzbekistan guaranteed non-interference in the affairs of religious groups and the country, while about 80 per was Muslim, had a high level of religious tolerance. In answer to Ms. Zerrougui, Uzbekistan cooperated closely on the issue of arbitrary detention.

The Working Group had issued a report this year but Uzbekistan had earlier provided exhaustive information on alleged arbitrary detention of certain persons and hoped this would be taken into account in the next report. He added habeas corpus had been established in Uzbekistan this year and this would be an important legal instrument.

SUZANNE DE GROOT (Netherlands) thanked the three Experts for their presentations. The Netherlands supported the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. Concerning the report on the freedom of religion, the Netherlands asked what were the most flagrant examples that the Special Rapporteur came across in his mandate. With regard to Bahai’s, the Netherlands asked whether a change in the perception of the persecution of Iranian Bahai’s could be noted. The Netherlands also asked whether the registration of Internet users in China and other countries represented a violation of the right of freedom of expression. 2006 had been the deadliest year for journalists. The Netherlands asked about the view of the Special Rapporteur on this issue.

MOHAMED ZIAD DOUALEH (Djibouti) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of freedom of expression, his analysis put forward the actual tendencies and challenges which continued to impede the protection and promotion of the freedom of opinion and expression. The analysis was interesting, inasmuch as it brought out once more an archetype of philosophical debate on the issue, and its transposition into society, particularly in the time of new information technologies.

Djibouti supported recommendation 86 of the report in which the Special Rapporteur proposed the elaboration of a study on the issue of the security and protection of journalists, in particular in situations of armed conflict. Those who promoted freedom of expression whilst ignoring the fundamental rights of others, twisting ideology, caused immeasurable harm. The heart of the debate for restoring the equilibrium the Special Rapporteur urged lay in the need for discernment, tolerance, and a sense of responsibilities which should guide the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

ZUZANA STIBOROVA (Czech Republic) said there were certain restrictions to the exercise of freedom of expression under international law. Mr. Ligabo had mentioned concerns about governments introducing laws and about mechanisms regulated by independent authorities, regarding pursuit of media offences without involving criminal law; could Mr. Ligabo comment further on this? Women and minority groups faced pressure from authorities in pursuing their right to freedom of expression, and further comment on this was requested. Could the Special Rapporteur also give attention to the violation of freedom of expression based on sexual orientation in pursuing his mandate?

IGBAL ELAMIN (Sudan) associated Sudan with the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Sudan wanted to thank the Special Rapporteur for the report on freedom of expression and agreed with it. Each freedom supported and bolstered the other. Abusing religion like it was the case with the caricatures should not occur. This position was not in line with the universality of the human principles. It jeopardized international peace and security. Sudan invited the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Ligabo, to visit the country in this regard. Sudan also referred to the only incident in the Sudanese press where a journalist had been assassinated and affirmed that those accused for the crime were facing trial these days.

PIL-WOO KIM (Republic of Korea) said the report on the freedom of opinion and expression was very timely in that it covered the Internet governance issue in the context of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur’s observation that the principles of freedom of religion and freedom of expression could coexist without contradiction was supported. The exercise of freedom of expression demanded rationality and a sense of responsibility. The common efforts to enhance worldwide awareness of the ever-increasing interdependence among peoples and cultures should be further encouraged.

There should be, as suggested by the Special Rapporteur, an international organization for Internet governance. Such an entity should govern the Internet with a firm human rights approach, enhance digital infrastructure, and reduce the digital divide. The Council should closely follow international debates on Internet governance, currently underway within or without the United Nations, and, if necessary, make the Council’s voice heard.

FIORELLA SAGRETTI (Italy) said the issue of dialogue among religions, cultures and civilizations was indeed one of the most important questions to be addressed by the Human Rights Council. It involved a wide range of civil and political rights ranging from freedom of religion, expression and association to social and cultural rights, minorities rights and others. Italy had traditionally been active in promoting this dialogue and believed there should be an atmosphere of openness and mutual respect. Italy welcomed the idea of structured high-level dialogue, in the form of panels or round tables, within the Council on these themes, and hoped that the objective of open dialogue on issues related to religious freedom and cultural identity would not be abandoned on the future agenda of the Council. Such initiatives would be the best way to address these various interdependent subjects.

MARIE THERESE PICTET- ALTHANN (Sovereign Order of Malta) said that there were a number of links between the reports submitted to the Council by the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief and on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This interrelation and complementarity was also stressed in document A/HRC/2/3 examined during the second session of the Council. Enacting laws may not always be sufficient to strengthen human rights norms and a continuing dialogue in this respect was therefore essential. The Sovereign Order of Malta was engaged in promoting an inter-religious dialogue and supported a comprehensive approach that guaranteed the rights of religious freedom and freedom of expression.

LASSE KEISALO (Finland) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, it was highly appreciated that the work had been carried out jointly with other Special Procedures, including on the issues related to the situations and violations and discrimination that affected women. In reference to the serious concerns raised in her report on aggravated discrimination that women faced, had she so far seen positive examples that could guide as a useful reference to national strategies for prevention to eliminate prejudicial practices that were harmful to women and girls, Finland asked.

Mr. Ligabo was asked for an assessment about the gender-related core problems that needed to be addressed in order to empower women and to narrow down the digital gap. With regards to the report of Ms. Zerrougui, it was noted that only 54 of the 156 urgent appeals issued by the Working Group had been responded to, and there had been a decrease in replies for the same period last year. Could the Human Rights Council help the Working Group to ensure that Governments acted more promptly when urgent appeals were issued?

PHEAK KDEY KEO (Cambodia) said Ms. Zerrougui’s report made reference to a particular case. The case concerned an individual who had committed crimes that no country in the world allowed and that directly affected national security. He had been sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released in 2006. The case in question should be considered closed.

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia) thanked the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion on her report and Armenia strongly supported her mandate. In her report, the Special Rapporteur referred to the “alleged destruction of certain monuments in Djulfa, Nakhichevan”. This was a highly sensitive issue as these “certain monuments” were a medieval Christian Armenian cemetery with a remaining 2,000 out of originally more than 10,000 individually carved, artistically unique cross stones dating from the ninth and sixteenth century and the adjacent church. These acts of destruction had occurred in an area which posed no immediate security concern. General Assembly resolutions condemned all acts of destruction directed against religious sites and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action emphasized the need to counter intolerance and related violence based on religion, including the desecration of religious sites. The Special Rapporteur was encouraged to keep the issue under further consideration.

ROBYN MUDIE (Australia) said the oppression of the most active supporters of the free circulation of information and opinion continued to remain a concern throughout the world. Governments should ensure conformity with international human rights norms, and encourage a culture of transparency and openness in public affairs. There was deep concern for the treatment of civil society in Zimbabwe, including the press.

There was also concern for the current situation in Sri Lanka, where the Government continued to extend the state of emergency regulations, which impacted upon the legitimate activities of the press and civil society. In Fiji, pro-democracy dissent had been forced underground following the December military coup. In light of these and many other situations of concern, all countries were called upon to meet their international obligations.

JONAS JOLLE (Norway) said there was an urgent need to de-politicize discriminatory practices related to religion. There was a momentum that was making the issue ever more important on the international agenda. This gave fuel to those who aimed to reinforce illusions of exclusive identity and conflict between groups and civilizations. Norway asked what could be done to counter the negative impact of this focus on religion while maintaining a positive profile in regard to religious matters at large.

Mr. Ligabo had made recommendations on Internet freedom, but there were several countries that were tracking and harassing bloggers. Had there been any progress at all on this? Protection of journalists in hostile or conflict situations remained a concern, the last year being the worst on record for violence against journalists. Could Mr. Ligabo elaborate on a current study of violence against journalists? And what could be done to identify perpetrators of violence against journalists?

Ms. Zerrougui’s Working Group had recommended a study of the recent growth of prison populations. Had there been any response yet? It also called on all States to join political and technical efforts to ensure basic rights of those in detention. Could Ms. Zerrougui report on any progress, Norway asked?

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07025E