COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATES ON ARBITRARY DETENTION, INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, BURUNDI, CREATES MANDATES ON SLAVERY, MINORITIES

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted texts in which it extended the mandates of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, the Special Rapporteur on human rights of indigenous people and the Independent Expert on human rights in Burundi. The Council also created the post of a Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery to replace the Working Group on contemporary forms of slavery, and set up the Forum on Minority Issues to replace the Working Group on minorities.

Among the 16 resolutions, two Presidential statements and one decision adopted were a resolution on establishing a Universal Periodic Review Voluntary Trust Fund and a Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance, two resolutions relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, a resolution preserving the Social Forum, and Presidential statements on the situation of human rights in Haiti and the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

At the end of the morning meeting, the President of the Council, Doru Romulus Costea, said that he had received a request signed by 17 Member States of the Council for the Council to hold a Special Session on the situation in Myanmar on Tuesday, 2 October. He said that he would hold open-ended informative consultations on Monday, 1 October in the afternoon, the time and venue which would be announced later, to discuss the request.

The Council extended the mandate of the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people for three years. It also extended for one year the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi. The Council appointed, for a three-year period, a Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and its consequences, to replace the Working Group on contemporary forms of slavery. It also decided to establish a Forum on Minority Issues to replace the Working Group on minorities.

In a resolution on establishment of funds for the Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the Human Rights Council, the Council requests the Secretary-General to establish a Universal Periodic Review Voluntary Trust Fund to facilitate the participation of developing countries, particularly least developing countries, in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and a new financial mechanism called the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance.

In a resolution on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, the Council calls for the implementation of its resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions. In a resolution on religious and cultural rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the Council calls upon Israel, the occupying power, to respect the religious and cultural rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to allow Palestinian worshippers unfettered access to their religious sites.

In the Presidential Statement on the situation of human rights in Haiti, the Council welcomes the return to the rule of constitutional law in Haiti, commends the Haitian authorities on their efforts to improve living conditions for Haitians through measures such as greater regard for human rights and cooperation with the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, and encourages the Independent Expert to continue his mission and report thereon to the Council at its eighth session.

In the Presidential Statement on the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Council urges all States parties to the Convention to comply strictly with their obligations under the Convention, and urges all States that have not yet done so to become parties to the Convention.

The Council also adopted texts to request an informal meeting to discuss the most appropriate mechanisms to continue the work of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations; on the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for cultural diversity; on human rights and unilateral coercive measures; on human rights and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation; on development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights; on the United Nations declaration on human rights education and training; on protection of cultural heritage as an important component for the promotion and protection of cultural rights; on the Social Forum and on the prevention of genocide.

Several draft resolutions, on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, were deferred until a subsequent session of the Council.

Speaking in introductory remarks, general comments and explanations of vote were the representatives of France, Burundi, Cuba, Slovenia, Canada, Germany, Armenia, Italy, Morocco, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Guatemala, Ukraine, Russian Federation, Bolivia, Brazil, Austria, Indonesia, Pakistan and Palestine.

The Council’s next meeting will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it is scheduled to resume action on resolutions and decisions before suspending its sixth session.

Presidential Statement on Situation of Human Rights in Haiti

In a Presidential Statement (A/HRC/6/L.28) on the situation of human rights in Haiti, adopted by consensus, the Council welcomes the return to the rule of constitutional law in Haiti, as evidenced by the election of the President, the restoration of an elected Parliament, the appointment of a Prime Minister, and the holding of municipal elections; commends the Haitian authorities on their commitment and efforts to improve living conditions for Haitians through measures such as greater regard for human rights and cooperation between the Haitian National Police and the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti in curbing violence; welcomes current efforts to correct irregularities in the police and justice systems; notes with satisfaction the steps taken to counter corruption and drug-trafficking; encourages the international community to step up its activities in all these areas and in human rights training and education for the security forces; and thanks the Independent Expert appointed by the Secretary-General to consider the human rights situation in Haiti for his report, encourages the Expert to continue his mission and report thereon to the Council at its eighth session.

Resolution on Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.30) on arbitrary detention, adopted by consensus as orally revised, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Working Group on arbitrary detention for a further period of three years, to, among other things, investigate cases of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily or otherwise inconsistently with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the relevant international legal instruments accepted by the States concerned; requests the States concerned to take account of the Working Group's views and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken; encourages all States concerned to ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations that ensure protection against arbitrary detention, bearing in mind relevant recommendations of the Working Group; and notes with concern that a persistent proportion of urgent appeals of the Working Group has been left unanswered and urges the States concerned to give the necessary attention to the urgent appeals addressed to them by the Working Group on a strictly humanitarian basis and without prejudging its possible final conclusions.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), introducing the text, said the draft resolution was aimed at renewing the mandate for a further three years. The Working Group would this continue its work on the basis of information from all parties, carry out field missions, and make deliberations. It would help prevent risks of arbitrary detention and tackle the problem in cooperation with concerned States. The issue of arbitrary detention had not been dealt with in recent years so it was necessary to encourage States to follow up on the earlier resolutions without delay. Undue haste had to be avoided. Consultations with as many delegations as possible had been needed in order to reach consensus. There were revisions proposed in preambular paragraph 5 and operational paragraph 1.e.

Resolution on Technical Assistance for Burundi

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.29/Rev.1) entitled consultative services and technical assistance for Burundi, adopted by consensus as orally revised, the Council asks the High Commissioner for Human Rights to increase the funds available for technical assistance to Burundi through its Office in Bujumbura; urges the international community to provide the Government of Burundi with means to be allow it to better consolidate human rights, peace and security on its national territory; and decides to extend for one year the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi.

PAUL MAHWERA (Burundi), introducing the draft resolution, orally revised the text. The text should recognize the efforts of the European Union, the United Nations and the international community in the country. The Human Rights Council was requested to consider and take into account the efforts of the Government and of the international community to make the FNL rejoin the peace agreement and for them to resume negotiations. The draft called upon the international community to help the Burundi Government to stop human rights violations and asked for financial assistance. Also it asked the mandate of the Independent Expert to be prolonged for one year.

Resolution on Enjoyment of Cultural Rights of Everyone

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.3/Rev.1) on promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for cultural diversity, adopted by consensus as orally revised, the Council reaffirms that the establishment of a thematic procedure in the field of cultural rights should not develop a new monitoring mechanism, and that the appointment of an Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights could assist the implementation of the present resolution, taking into account the work already done in this field by the United Nations system; and requests the High Commissioner to consult States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on the content and scope of the mandate of the Independent Expert, the basis of which would be the comprehensive implementation of the present resolution, and to report on the results of those consultations to the Council at its eighth session (to be held in June 2008).

REFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba), introducing the resolution, said Cuba attached great importance to the enjoyment of cultural rights and respect for cultural diversity. Recently, the Non-Aligned Movement had adopted the Declaration and Programme of Action on Cultural Rights. The draft text had called for an Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights. Cuba consistently favoured a thematic approach to this issue. But the co-sponsors decided not to call for this at this session, but did request broad consultations on the scope and content of the mandate before submitting it for adoption. Some revisions had been made.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union Member States of the Council, in a general comment, said the European Union was fully committed to the protection of human rights, and believed that all human rights were irreversible, interdependent and the international community should promote them equally in a fair manner. It was up to States, regardless of their economic, social and cultural systems to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. The European Union had presented concrete proposals to bring the text in line with international instruments. It remained concerned with the text’s focus on cultural diversity, as this could undermine the universality of human rights. It was inappropriate for the resolution to refer to a declaration adopted only by a group of States, as it did in operative paragraph five. The accusations raised against industrialised countries and against Israel in the resolution were utterly unacceptable. The European Union would join the consensus, and efforts aimed at creating a new human rights procedure should enjoy the widest possible support.

HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan) speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote on L3, said that they understood that the objectives of the resolution were the same as the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions adopted in 2005. It was deemed important for countries to promote cultural exchange throughout the world. But there were already many different activities in the framework of the UNESCO Convention and they should be better dealt there than in the Human Rights Council. It was believed that the objectives of the UNESCO Convention were the same as those of the resolution. Thus, the Japanese Government dissociated itself from the consensus.

Resolution on Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.7) on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, adopted by a vote of 34 in favour, 11 against, and 2 abstentions, as orally revised, the Council urges all States to stop adopting or implementing unilateral coercive measures not in accordance with international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States; strongly objects to the extraterritorial nature of those measures which threaten the sovereignty of States and; condemns the continued unilateral application and enforcement by certain powers of such measures as tools of political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against developing countries, with a view to preventing these countries from exercising their right to decide, of their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems; underlines that unilateral coercive measures are one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development; invites all Special Rapporteurs and existing thematic mechanisms of the Council in the field of economic, social and cultural rights to pay due attention to the negative impact and consequences of unilateral coercive measures; decides to give due consideration to the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures in its task concerning the implementation of the right to development; requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to give urgent consideration to the present resolution; and requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all Member States and to seek their views and information on the implications and negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on their populations, and to submit a report thereon to the Council at its ninth session.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (34): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (11): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (2): Republic of Korea and Ukraine.


ABEL LA ROSA DOMINGUEZ (Cuba), introducing the draft resolution on behalf on the Non-Aligned Movement, said there were still coercive measures imposed on different countries. Such measures affected the self-determination of people and the full enjoyment of their human rights. This resolution should help to put an end to this. Some revisions had been made to the text. It was hoped that this text would be adopted and that the Council would take action against unilateral coercive measures.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), in a general comment, said the resolution failed to distinguish between unilateral coercive measures that were acceptable under international law and those extra-territorial measures that were contrary to international law, and Canada therefore requested a vote on the draft.

Resolution on Human Rights and Equitable Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.13/Rev.1) on human rights and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation, adopted by consensus, the Council, taking note of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments (A/HRC/6/3), calls upon all States to give due attention to the report; and decides to consider the issue at its seventh session.

REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany), speaking on behalf of Spain and the co-sponsors, introduced the resolution. Access to safe drinking water was seen as an important human right. The current resolution was stemming from a report of the High Commissioner on the matter. It was hoped that this resolution would be adopted with consensus.

Decision on Prevention of Genocide

In a decision (A/HRC/6/L.14) on prevention of genocide, adopted without a vote, the Council, taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Five-Point Action Plan and the activities of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, requests the Secretary-General to make available to the Council at its seventh session an updated report, and invites the Special Adviser to address the Council at the same session on the progress made in discharging his duties.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia), introducing the decision, said the United Nations human rights system should consolidate interaction on the issue and Armenia advocated promoting a bridge between the institutions concerned. Armenia reiterated the invitation to the Special Adviser to report on his observations.

Presidential Statement on Twentieth Anniversary of Entry into Force of Convention against Torture

In a Presidential Statement (A/HRC/6/L.22) on the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by consensus, the Council notes with deep appreciation that the Convention has been in force since 26 June 1987; warmly welcomes the work of the Committee against Torture for its impressive contribution to combat torture worldwide; urges all States parties to the Convention to comply strictly with their obligations under the Convention; urges all States that have not yet done so to become parties to the Convention; invites all States parties that have not yet done so to make the declarations concerning inter-State and individual communications; invites all States parties that have not yet done so to notify the Secretary-General of their acceptance of the amendments to articles 17 and 18 as soon as possible; and requests the Secretary-General to ensure the provision of adequate staff and facilities for the bodies and mechanisms involved.

Resolution on Development of Public Information Activities in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.25) on development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights, adopted without a vote, the Council encourages the Department of Public Information and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to continue to support the development of national capacities for human rights education and public information and to launch specific initiatives for widening public information in the field of human rights; encourages all States to develop specific public information in the field of human rights and to enhance their education and training efforts; calls on the High Commissioner to mainstream education and public information activities in the existing initiatives and in those to be undertaken to this end at the international, regional and national levels; requests the Secretary-General to mobilize the UN Country Teams in order to promote education, training and public information activities in the field of human rights; and requests the Secretary-General and the OHCHR to submit to the Council a joint progress report on public information activities in the field of human rights being undertaken throughout the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy), introducing the resolution, thanked the sponsors of the project. Many steps had been undertaken for the promotion and protection of human rights. A General Assembly resolution had established that the Human Rights Council should promote human tights education and learning. The strong linkage between public information, education and training was underlined. Human rights respect needed to be promoted. The UN Department of Public Information and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were encouraged to continue to support the further development of national capacities in this matter.

Resolution on United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.31) on a United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the “Human Rights Council Advisory Committee” to prepare a draft declaration on human rights education and training, and requests it to present a report to the Human Rights Council, at its 2009 main session, on the progress achieved.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), introducing the resolution, said the draft had been amended to show a sequence giving the need to take account of existing instruments. The aim of the initiative was to mark the community of values underlying human rights. There had been wide and extensive consultations.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland), further introducing the resolution, said that this resolution gave the mandate to draft a document for human rights training. The High Commissioner and national institutes and instruments would help in this matter. Switzerland and Morocco shared together the same desire in the promotion of human rights. This had to be based on cooperation and dialogue. The delegations that had given their support were thanked.

Resolution on Protection of Cultural Heritage

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.33) on protection of cultural heritage as an important component for the promotion and protection of cultural rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council calls upon States to reinvigorate their efforts in taking appropriate measures to prevent, avoid, stop and suppress acts of intentional destruction of cultural heritage, wherever such heritage is located, both in peacetime and in the event of armed conflict; encourages all States, relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and the media to promote a culture of tolerance and respect for the diversity of cultures, civilisations and religions and for cultural and religious sites, which represent an important aspect of the collective heritage of humankind; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to encourage all relevant human rights bodies and mechanisms to pay due attention to the issue of promotion of cultural diversity and protection of cultural heritage as an important component of the promotion and protection of all human rights, including the full realisation of cultural rights; and encourages the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to enhance consultations with the Council and co-operation with relevant international and regional organisations and bodies concerned with the issue of protection of cultural heritage in order to address human rights related aspects of this issue.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia), introducing the resolution, said this was another effort to address the issue of cultural heritage. Cultural heritage was a central important component of the promotion and protection of all human rights, including the full realisation of cultural rights. Protection of heritage had been addressed in various other bodies such as UNESCO. The resolution thus aimed to focus on the human rights aspect of the protection of cultural heritage. Armenia had had extensive consultations on drafting the resolution. Oral revisions were made.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Council’s European Union members, said that the European Union recognized the importance of cultural heritage and condemned the destruction of cultural heritage. However the linkage between cultural heritage and human rights was not clear. This issue did not have a place in the Council and did not help in promoting human rights. The European Union would not vote against it if such matters would not be brought again before the Council.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), in a general comment, said Azerbaijan was fully committed to the protection of cultural heritage, as enshrined in international documents, and strongly deplored any destruction of cultural heritage, and therefore supported generally the text. However, the Human Rights Council was not the place to deal with the destruction of cultural heritage - the interlinkage between cultural heritage and human rights was not sufficiently clear in the text, and it should instead be dealt with in other fora. The politicisation of the Human Rights Council in this regard was of concern. Azerbaijan had some problems with the draft, including the repeated use of the word “intentional” in the text. However, despite these problems, in the spirit of compromise and consensus, Azerbaijan would not stand in the way of the adoption of the resolution without a vote, on the understanding that the issue of cultural heritage would not be brought before the Council again.

AMR ROSHDY (Egypt), in a general comment, said Egypt did not agree with the conditionality that the resolution would be adopted on the basis that the issue would not be submitted in the future. Egypt maintained the right of any delegation to submit any initiative they wished, and for the Council to adopt them if it wished, without these conditionalities.

Resolution on Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Indigenous People

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.26) on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous People, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a period of three years to: examine ways and means of overcoming existing obstacles to the full and effective protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people; to gather, request, receive and exchange information and communications from all relevant sources; to formulate recommendations and proposals; to work in close cooperation with the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; to develop a regular cooperative dialogue with all relevant actors; to promote the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples where appropriate; to pay special attention to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous children and women; to consider relevant recommendations of the World Conferences, Summits and other United Nations meetings, as well as the recommendations, observations and conclusions of the Treaty Bodies; to submit a report on the implementation of his/her mandate to the Council; and requests all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur; encourages all Governments to give serious consideration to the possibility of inviting the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries; requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all the necessary human, technical and financial assistance; decides to continue consideration of this question in conformity with the Human Rights Council’s programme of work.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), introducing the resolution, said were some 330,000 indigenous peoples whose rights needed to be recognized and respected. The objective was to review and strengthen the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, ensuring he had broad clear functions in the light of new realities and recent instruments like the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text of the draft was based on the previous documents of the mandate with strengthened provisions for the Special Rapporteur. The mandate increased protection for indigenous rights, and the co-sponsors took on board comments from consulting delegations. New wording was introduced to preambular paragraph 2, and revisions were made to operational paragraph 1.g. He hoped for adoption by consensus.

VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine), speaking in a general comment, said that Ukraine supported the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. Ukraine had always respected strict observance of those rights. Noting that there had been an absence of consensus in the General Assembly on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Ukraine underlined that some provisions of the Declaration were unclear and reiterated that its Article 3 had to be interpreted and applied in the context of international law.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), in a general comment, said it was pleased to co-sponsor the resolution, and supported the procedure, as addressing indigenous issues was an important element of the work that the Council had to undertake. The vast majority of the text was supported. Canada remained committed to advancing the rights of indigenous peoples, both at home and abroad, and supported the international documents on the rights of indigenous peoples, many of which it was party to. However, some of the language of the resolution went further than this; nevertheless, thanks to qualifications, Canada could support this. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was not applicable to Canada, and therefore the Special Rapporteur had no mandate to promote the Declaration in States which had not adopted the Declaration in the General Assembly.

OLEG MALGINOV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people was one of the most important mandates. Russia’s position on the Declaration adopted at the last General Assembly remained as it was then.

ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia), in a general comment, said that Bolivia was grateful for the efforts by Guatemala and Mexico. Some of the text was in opposition with the Declaration recently adopted but Bolivia would not oppose its adoption.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil), in a general comment, said the work of Guatemala and Mexico on the resolution was appreciated, and Brazil fully supported the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the important action the Council was just about to take with regards to adoption of the resolution.

Resolution on the Social Forum

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.17/Rev.1) on the Social Forum, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to preserve the Social Forum as a unique space for interactive dialogue between the United Nations human rights machinery and various stakeholders, including grass-roots organizations, and underlines the importance of coordinated efforts at national, regional and international levels for the promotion of social cohesion based on the principles of social justice, equity and solidarity as well as to address the social dimension and challenges of the ongoing globalization process; decides also that the Social Forum shall continue meeting every year; requests that the next meeting of the Social Forum be held during 2008, in Geneva; decides that the Social Forum will meet for three working days, in order that it may devote one day to thematic discussions, one day to discussion on the social dimension of the globalization process, and one day to an interactive debate with relevant thematic procedures mandate holders of the Council, and to formulating conclusions and recommendations; requests the President of the Council to appoint, before the end of 2007, from candidates nominated by regional groups, the Chairperson-Rapporteur for the 2008 Social Forum; requests also the Secretary-General to take all practical measures required for the success of this initiative; invites the 2008 Social Forum to submit to the Council a report including a proposal of possible themes for the 2009 Social Forum; and requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all the necessary support to facilitate the convening and proceedings of the Social Forum.

YURI ARIEL GALA LOPEZ (Cuba), introducing the resolution, said the parties to the Social Forum had made clear that the Human Rights Council should maintain the Social Forum and its functions. It was agreed the Council would decide at this session on the appropriate way to proceed with Working Groups on indigenous peoples, contemporary forms of slavery and minorities. Cuba desired to maintain the Forum as a space for interactive dialogue between the United Nations and various stakeholders including grass roots organizations. The text stated the Forum should meet every year and involve broad participation from States and civil society. The draft was the result of broad and intensive informal negotiations and efforts had been made to accommodate the concerns thus expressed.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the Council’s European Union members in a general comment, said that they considered the Social Forum as an appropriate space to improve the dialogue between different parties. However with the already heavy work and tight schedule of the Human Rights Council, the programme of Social Forum should be merged and cut to two days. It should also not prejudge the results of the ongoing Universal Periodic Review process. The European Union would not oppose the resolution.

Resolution on Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.23/Rev.1) on Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council decides to appoint, for a three-year period, a Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and its consequences, to replace the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery; decides that the Special Rapporteur shall examine and report on all contemporary forms of slavery and slavery-like practices, as well as all other issues covered by the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery including forced prostitution; promote the effective application of relevant international norms and standards on slavery; request, receive and exchange information on contemporary forms of slavery; respond effectively to reliable information on possible human rights violations with a view to protecting the human rights of victims of slavery and preventing violations; recommend actions and measures applicable at the national, regional and international levels to prevent and eliminate slavery practices wherever they occur; and calls upon all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of the tasks and duties mandated. The Council requests the Special Rapporteur to cooperate fully and effectively with other existing human rights mechanisms and treaty bodies; requests the Special Rapporteur to submit annual reports on the activities of the mandate to the Council together with recommendations on measures that should be taken to combat and eradicate contemporary forms of slavery and slavery-like practices and to protect the human rights of victims of such practices; and requests the Secretary-General to give the Special Rapporteur all necessary human and financial assistance for the effective fulfilment of his/her mandate.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), introducing the resolution, said the draft took up one of the last pending issues from the institution-building document agreed upon in June. It proposed a new Special Rapporteur to replace the former Working Group on contemporary forms of slavery. Slavery was recognized as a grave human rights violation, prohibited under various instruments. Yet there were no United Nations mechanisms to combat slavery, a clear gap that needed to be filled. Slavery and related practices continued even 200 years after abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. The text had been finalized following discussions and consultations. This was an example of how the Council could deal with complex issues in a constructive manner. Revisions were made, replacing preambular paragraph 9 with new wording, and deleting operational paragraph 3.c.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that despite the introduction of reference to forced prostitution, this fell short of their expectations and of catching the wide range of matters, which the Special Rapporteur was planned to take into his mandate. However, in a spirit of consensus they would accept the resolution but would come back to this matter in the future work of the Council.

JOSE TAVARES (Indonesia), in an explanation of vote after the vote on the resolution on the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, said that this was an important matter for Indonesia. By endorsing this resolution, the Council gave greater prominence to this matter. The Special Rapporteur should fulfil his mandate by also helping to push for international conventions on this matter to be signed by States.

Resolution on Forum on Minority Issues

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.34) on a Forum on Minority Issues, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to establish a Forum on Minority Issues to provide a platform for promoting dialogue and cooperation on issues pertaining to persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities; also decides that the Forum shall be open to the participation of States, United Nations mechanisms, bodies and specialized agencies, Funds and Programmes, inter-governmental organisations, regional organisations and mechanisms in the field of human rights, National Human Rights Institutions and other relevant national bodies, academics and experts on minority issues, non-governmental organisations in consultative status with ECOSOC; requests the President of the Human Rights Council to appoint for each session on the basis of regional rotation and in consultation with regional groups a Chairperson of the Forum; and decides that the Independent Expert on Minority Issues shall identify annual thematic subjects for discussion in consultation with the Forum, and invites him/her to include in her report thematic recommendations of the Forum and recommendations for future thematic subjects, for consideration of the Human Rights Council.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria), introducing the resolution, said the Council had already been mandated to consider appropriate ways to continue the work of the Working Group on Minorities. It was imperative to establish a platform for dialogue and build on the former Working Group’s achievements. It was an annual forum for dialogue open to all, including States and non-governmental organizations. Discussions would benefit from the Independent Expert’s guidance and expertise. Proposed revisions were made.

YURI ARIEL GALA LOPEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said Cuba welcomed the adoption of resolution L.34 on minority issues, which it fully endorsed, despite its concern with regards to the paragraph mentioning “resources of the United Nations”, as this could not constitute a precedent for the work of the Human Rights Council. Political decisions should not be dependent on budgetary decisions, as this matter was incumbent on the Fifth Committee of the United Nations.

Resolution on Informal Meeting to Decide on Most Appropriate Mechanisms to Continue Work of Working Group on Indigenous Populations

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.35) on an informal meeting to discuss the most appropriate mechanisms to continue the work of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council decides to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an informal meeting in Geneva for a day and a half open to the participation of States, indigenous peoples and other stakeholders preceding the resumed December session of the Council to exchange views on the most appropriate mechanisms to continue the work of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.

ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia), introducing the draft resolution, emphasized the importance of the Working Group on indigenous people. The recent General Assembly Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was one of the results of its work. They were now thinking of the best way to continue its work and thus had suggested a body which would include indigenous people in a constant dialogue. This had not been achieved until now, thus the present resolution was presented in its place.

Comments Made at End of Taking Action on Resolutions on Agenda Item on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union members of the Council, in general comment, said it was understood that the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures mandate holders was binding. There was no legal obligation to include a reference to the Code of Conduct.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), in a general comment, said with regards to the comment made by Slovenia, yesterday Egypt had not said that putting in a reference to the Code of Conduct would make it legally binding. Egypt had never said this - all resolutions of the Council were legally binding under their own merit. However, the inclusion of the mention of the Code of Conduct improved the texts in other regards.

Resolution on Establishment of Funds for Universal Periodic Review

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.12/Rev.1) on establishment of funds for the Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the Human Rights Council, the Council requests the Secretary-General to establish a Universal Periodic Review Voluntary Trust Fund to facilitate the participation of developing countries, particularly least developing countries, in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism; also requests the Secretary-General to establish a new financial mechanism called the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance to be administered jointly with the Universal Periodic Review Voluntary Trust Fund; urges all Member States, observers and other stakeholders of the Council to support the operaitonalisation of the above funds; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take the necessary measures with a view to expeditiously operationalising the mechanisms.

AMR ROSHDY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group Members of the Council, introducing the resolution, said the draft was subject to consultations and comments had been incorporated in the revised text. The African Group felt that the Secretary- General should quickly establish a new Voluntary Trust Fund for financial assistance for the Universal Periodic Review process and a new Voluntary Fund for technical cooperation and assistance.

Resolution on Follow-Up to Human Rights Council Resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.2) on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, adopted without a vote, the Council, noting with regret that Israel, the occupying power, has not implemented to date these two resolutions and hindered the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions specified therein, calls for the implementation of its resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions; and requests the President of the Human Rights Council and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its next session on their efforts for the implementation of Council resolutions S­1/1 and S-3/1 and on the compliance of Israel, the occupying power, with these two resolutions.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab Group members of the Council, said that both missions under Resolution S-1/1 an S-3/1 had not been able to carry out their assigned tasks, due to difficulties of accessing the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The OIC and the Arab Group remained concerned about the inordinate delay in their implementation. Non-implementation of these resolutions was also a test of the will of the Council. The Council’s resolutions should not be flouted. Through this resolution the High Commissioner and the President of the Council were being asked to request a report to the Council on the implementation of the two resolutions and compliance by the occupying power.

AMR ROSHDY (Egypt), in a general comment, said the just struggle of the Palestinian people did not need more resolutions. The vote about to be cast was not on the daily atrocities faced in Palestine, but on the credibility of the Council. Would the Council continue to issue resolutions without any follow-up.? A Yes vote was a yes to the credibility of the Council. A No vote was a big No to the Council itself. Israel should know that it could not get away with continued atrocities.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the Members of the European Union that were Member States of the Council, in a general comment, said the European Union remained concerned about the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, and had made a detailed statement to this effect under agenda item 7. The European Union had not been in a position to support the resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 as they were unbalanced, and failed to call upon all parties to cease violence. However, it was of vital importance that all States effectively cooperate with the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. Therefore, the European Union did not oppose previous resolutions on this, and would not oppose this one. However, the situation had changed on the ground over the last year, and the sponsors of this draft should take note of this in the future.

MOHAMMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said that last week the Council had witnessed the attempt to absolve Israel of its continued obstruction of the Tutu mission. But facts did not cease to exist by merely being ignored. The two resolutions had been ignored and not been implemented. All in the Council seemed to agree that resolutions should be implemented, except Israel.

Resolution on Religious and Cultural Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.4) on religious and cultural rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, adopted with a vote of 31 in favour, one against, and 15 abstentions, the Council stresses that all policies and measures taken by Israel, the occupying power, to limit access of Palestinians to their holy sites, particularly in Occupied East Jerusalem, on the basis of national origin, religion, birth, sex or any other status are in violation of the provisions of [the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; relevant Security Council resolutions on Occupied East Jerusalem; and the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War]; calls upon Israel, the occupying power, to respect the religious and cultural rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to allow Palestinian worshippers unfettered access to their religious sites; and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its next session on the implementation of the present resolution.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (1): Canada.

Abstentions (15): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Madagascar, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and Arab Group Members of the Council, introducing the draft, said the preamble of the draft emphasized the rich religious and cultural heritage of East Jerusalem, recalled earlier Security Council resolutions on occupied East Jerusalem and affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The draft called for a cessation of policies and measures that limited access to holy sites, respect for religious and cultural rights enumerated under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and requested the High Commissioner to report at the next Council Session.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union Member States that were Members of the Council, said the European Union attached the highest importance of all to the freedom of worship, and called upon all States to respect these rights, and to refrain from all acts impeding the exercise of these rights, including restriction of aspects to places of worship. The European Union could not accept this draft, as it did not reflect correctly the relevant human rights provisions, including the limitations on such rights as charted through international human rights law. Part of the language was unbalanced and excessive. The European Union was concerned that the presentation of this draft could have negative effects on the discussion of such issues as access to the Al-Aqsa mosque in UNESCO. For these reasons the European Union called for a vote on the resolution, and would abstain.

MOHAMMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said that the text had been the outcome of a number of consultations. Currently it was the holy month of Ramadan and worshippers would like to be able to pray in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but could not do so because of Israel. This was a normal practice by Israel to block access to Muslim and Christian worship places. Palestine hoped the resolution was accepted by consensus.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Canada agreed and supported the principle that there should be substantive follow up to Council decisions. Canada may have supported these texts had they been more evenly balanced and objective. The texts did not accurately reflect the true situation. Referring to L.4, Canada was a strong supporter of freedom of religion. The periodic restrictions on Palestinian worshippers imposed by Israel should be consistent with international humanitarian and human rights law. But the resolution did not acknowledge legitimate security concerns and that restrictive actions could be taken for security reasons.

MARIANA OLIVERA (Mexico), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Mexico had voted for resolution L.4, but felt that restrictions of free access of all to their places of worship and free circulation among peoples such as by walls were one of the gravest violations of history, as well as being pointless. They were an offence to mankind, separating families. Peaceful cooperation could only be achieved through dialogue and peaceful understanding. New walls would fall, but those that existed today would leave scars, causing mistrust.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07072E