HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS THREE RESOLUTIONS AND ONE DECISION, AS WELL AS A TRANSITIONAL MEASURE

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted three resolutions, on protection of cultural rights and property during armed conflicts, extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, and on human rights and international solidarity; one decision, on guidelines for preparation of information on the Universal Periodic Review, and on technical and objective requirements for candidates for mandates and for the membership in the Advisory Committee of the Council; and one transitional measure to ensure continuity of the work of the Working Group on Communications.

In a decision on the follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, the Council adopted without a vote the general guidelines for the preparation of information under the Universal Periodic Review, technical and objective requirements for eligible candidates for mandate holders, technical and objective requirements for the submission of candidatures for the Advisory Committee of the Council.

In a resolution on protection of cultural rights and property in situations of armed conflict, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council strongly condemned any destruction of cultural property in violation of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts, and urged that States, in protecting cultural rights and property during armed conflicts, pay particular attention to the situation in occupied territories.

In a resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, adopted without a vote, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a period of three years.

In a resolution, on human rights and international solidarity, adopted with 34 in favour, 12 against, and one abstention (Switzerland), as orally amended, the Council requested the independent expert on human rights and international solidarity to continue discharging his mandate, subject to the review of this mandate in the near future, requested the independent expert to continue his work in the preparation of a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity, and to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution at its ninth session.

As a transitional measure, the Council decided to request the members of the former Working Group on Communications to act as members of the Working Group on Communications of the new Complaint Procedure.

With regard to concerns raised by Members on the review of mandates, Council President Doru Costea stressed that there would be equal treatment of revision, rationalization and improvement of mandates, in accordance with the provisions of Council resolution 5/1 on institution-building. He would continue consultations between now and December to find the approach and methodology for the revision, rationalization and improvement of mandates. All revision, rationalization and improvement of mandates would be moved up the list, and would be taken up in order of their being tabled.

Speaking in introductory remarks, general comments and explanation of vote were Morocco, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Sri Lanka, Azerbaijan, Cuba, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Sri Lanka on behalf of the Asian Group and Guatemala.

The Council’s next meeting will be tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., when it is scheduled to resume action on resolutions and decisions.

Action on Transitional Measure on Working Group of Communications

As a transitional measure, the Council decided to request the members of the former Working Group on Communications to act as members of the Working Group on Communications of the new Complaint Procedure operating within the parameters of the new procedure until such time as the new Working Group was established.

Action on Decision on General Guidelines for Universal Periodic Review, Requirements for Candidates for Mandate Holders, Advisory Committee

In a decision (A/HRC/6/L.24) on follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, adopted without a vote, the Council adopts the general guidelines for the preparation of information under the Universal Periodic Review, including the background of the country under review and framework for the promotion and protection of human rights: constitution, legislation, policy measures, national jurisprudence, human rights infrastructure and scope of international obligations; promotion and protection of human rights on the ground; identification of achievements, best practices, challenges and constraints; key national priorities, initiatives and commitments that the State concerned intends to undertake to overcome those challenges and constraints and improve human rights situations on the ground; expectations of the State concerned in terms of capacity-building and requests, if any, for technical assistance; presentation by the State concerned of the follow-up to the previous review; it also adopts the technical and objective requirements for eligible candidates for mandate holders, including general criteria such as expertise, impartiality, and objectivity, and that due consideration should be given to gender balance as well as to appropriate representation of different legal systems; general aspects of the procedure, including that a consultative group be established to propose to the President, at least one month before the beginning of the session, a list of candidates; and technical and objective requirements, among others, that candidates possess relevant educational qualifications or equivalent professional experience in the field of human rights, and good communication skills in one of the official languages of the United Nations; the Council also adopts the technical and objective requirements for the submission of candidatures for the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council, including recognized competence and experience in the field of human rights, high moral standing, independence and impartiality.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), in a general comment on A/HRC/6/L.24, said that in drawing up the guidelines for the Universal Periodic Review, account needed to be taken of discrepancies between English and French texts.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) speaking on behalf of the European Union members of the Council, in a general comment on decision A/HRC/6/L.24, said that the European Union was satisfied that the Council could finish the institutional building process and thanked the facilitators for their work. They now had all the tools for starting the Universal Periodic Review. The European Union strongly believed that a strong Universal Periodic Review would enhance the overall system of promoting and strengthening human rights. They were looking forward to the election of experts. The qualifications of mandate holders would bring an added value to the Council.

AMEER AJWAD OMER LEBBE (Sri Lanka), speaking on behalf of the Member States of the Council from the Asian Group, in a general comment on decision A/HRC/6/L.24, said the Asian Group wished to transmit its sincere gratitude to the facilitators for the excellent work done, and for their transparent and inclusive manner in which they conducted their consultations.

Action on Resolution on Protection of Cultural Rights and Property in Situations of Armed Conflict

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.1) on protection of cultural rights and property in situations of armed conflict, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council strongly condemns any destruction of cultural property in violation of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts; emphasizes that protection of cultural property during armed conflicts can contribute to the full enjoyment of the right of everyone to take part in cultural life; urges States and encourages intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to take all necessary measures to address the issue of protection of cultural rights and property during armed conflicts, paying particular attention to the situation in occupied territories; requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all Governments, the competent United Nations bodies, the specialized agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations and international humanitarian organizations; and also requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit to the Human Rights Council an annual report on the implementation of the present resolution.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), introducing draft resolution A/HRC/6/L.1, said there was an obvious need for human rights protection in all areas, including economic, social and cultural rights. The aim was to establish linkage between human rights law and international humanitarian law during armed conflicts and their impact on cultural rights during conflict. Protection of human rights during armed conflict was not a new topic. The draft had regional co-sponsors and a total of 26 other co-sponsors had added their support. To achieve broad support, Azerbaijan had been engaged in discussions with all interested stakeholders multilaterally and bilaterally. Amendments to operative paragraphs 1 and 3 and deletion of former paragraph 7 had led to consensus on the draft.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), in a general comment on A/HRC/6/L.1 on behalf of the European Union, stressed their understanding that warring parties had to respect humanitarian law. The condemnation of destruction of cultural property during wars was also recognized. However the link between protection of cultural property and human rights was not clear enough. It did not have much to do with the Council’s mandate. The European Union members of the Council would not oppose this text if not brought back again.


Action on Resolution on Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.5/Rev.1) on the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, adopted without a vote, as orally amended, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a period of three years: to, among others, promote the full realization of the right to food and the adoption of measures at the national, regional and international levels for the realization of the right of everyone to adequate food; to examine ways and means of overcoming existing and emerging obstacles; to continue mainstreaming a gender perspective and taking into account an age dimension in the fulfilment of the mandate; to submit proposals that could help the realization of Millennium Development Goal 1 to halve by the year 2015 the proportion of people who suffer from hunger; to present recommendations on possible steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right to food; calls upon all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur in his/her task; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all necessary human and financial resources for the effective fulfilment of the mandate; and invites the Special Rapporteur ending the fulfilment of his mandate to submit to the Council in 2008 a comprehensive final report on his findings, conclusions and recommendations, after more than six years as mandate holder on the right to food.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), introducing the draft resolution A/HRC/6/L.5/Rev.1 on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, read out a brief revision to the draft to be made to preambular paragraph 3, which added the subjects of the Council resolutions referenced by number in L.5. He hoped all delegations had been informed of the revision and would adopt it.

AMR ROSHDY (Egypt), speaking in a general comment on A/HRC/6/L.5/Rev.1 behalf of the African Group, thanked Cuba for this draft.

AMEER AJWAD OMER LEBBE (Sri Lanka), in a general comment on L.5/Rev.1 behalf of the Asian Group, said the Code of Conduct of Special Procedures was adopted by consensus along with the institution-building package. This Code was an important document, which aimed to improve the standard of the work of the Special Procedures in discharging their mandate. The Code of Conduct for Special Procedures mandate-holders should be fully adhered to and included in each of the resolutions on renewal or creation of mandates.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said that Guatemala had negotiated resolution L.5/Rev.1 in good faith and was going step by step, but could not accept conditionalities as to whether a resolution would be adopted. Resolutions would have to be considered on the basis of their content.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and International Solidarity

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.6) on Human rights and international solidarity, adopted with 34 in favour, 12 against, and one abstention (Switzerland), as orally amended, the Council urges the international community to consider urgently concrete measures to promote and consolidate international assistance to developing countries in their endeavours for development and for the promotion of conditions that make possible the full realization of all human rights; requests all States, United Nations agencies, other relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations to mainstream the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity in their activities; decides to request the independent expert on human rights and international solidarity to continue discharging his mandate, subject to the review of this mandate that will be accomplished by the Council in the near future; and requests the independent expert to continue his work in the preparation of a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity and to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution at its ninth session (to be held in September 2008), unless otherwise be decided by the Council.

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 (12): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovenia, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstention (1): Switzerland.

RAFAEL GARCIA COLLADA (Cuba), introducing draft resolution A/HRC/6/L.6 on Human rights and international solidarity, said that the Human Rights Commission had had much support on this subject for many years. This was a substantive test, which updated the issue, thanks also to relevant input of the independent expert. This resolution said the independent expert’s mandate should be prolonged. It was hoped that the Council would adopt it. Three new preamble paragraphs were introduced to the resolution.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of vote before the vote, said they unquestionably recognized the value of international cooperation, but could not endorse that full realization of human rights was the aim of international cooperation, as included in the draft. Each State had the duty to protect the human rights of its citizens, regardless of international cooperation. The new draft kept the focus of attention on the relations of States. The European Union had not supported the mandate of the Expert on human rights and international solidarity. The draft did not reflect the efforts of the international community, including the European Union, to eliminate obstacles to development. For these reasons, the European Union requested a vote on the resolution, and would vote against it.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07071E