HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATES OF EXPERTS ON INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS, SUDAN AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its resumed sixth session after adopting six resolutions in which it extended the mandates of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, and the Special Rapporteur on the protection, promotion and universal implementation of the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Council also established a new expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples and adopted texts on Myanmar and Darfur.

Concerning internally displaced persons, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons for a period of three years in order to, among other things, address the complex problem of internal displacement, in particular by mainstreaming human rights of the internally displaced into all relevant parts of the United Nations system.

On Sudan, the Council decided to extend for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan and urged the Government of Sudan to continue cooperating fully with the Special Rapporteur and to respond favourably to her requests to visit Sudan and to provide her with all necessary information so as to enable her to fulfil her mandate even more effectively. In a separate text on the Group of Experts on Darfur, the Council acknowledged the efforts by Sudan to implement the recommendations identified by the Group of Experts, but expressed its concern that the implementation of many recommendations had not been fully completed. It expressed particular concern at the fact that perpetrators of past and ongoing serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur had not yet been held accountable for their crimes and urged Sudan to urgently address this question.

Concerning the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Council expressed deep concern regarding its findings and strongly urged the Government of Myanmar to follow up and implement the recommendations contained in the report. It requested the Special Rapporteur to conduct a follow-up mission to Myanmar before its seventh session in order to assess in greater detail the human rights violations that had occurred and were occurring as a result of the continued violent repression of recent peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar and to monitor the implementation of the present resolution. It urged the Government of Myanmar to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur.

With regards to indigenous peoples, the Council decided to establish a mechanism to provide the Council with thematic expertise on the human rights of indigenous peoples. The expert mechanism would focus mainly on studies and research-based advice and suggest proposals to the Council for its consideration and approval. The expert mechanism would consist of five independent members and would meet once annually for five working days to contribute to the work of the Council with regard to the human rights of indigenous peoples.

The Council also decided that there was a need for the continued contribution of the Special Rapporteur to the protection, promotion and universal implementation of the right to freedom of religion or belief and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further period of three years. The resolution extending his mandate was adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, none against, and 18 abstentions.

Speaking in concluding remarks, Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Council, noted that among the adopted resolutions, some texts renewed mandates and Special Procedures, and four created new human rights mechanisms. The process was clear for the reform, rationalisation and improvement of mandates, but some procedural issues needed further examination. The uniqueness and specificity of each mandate required further examination. The final reports of all mandate holders would be taken into consideration as a good opportunity of analysis within the process. As important were the assessments by the mandate holders of the opportunities and challenges of their work. New mandate holders would begin to be appointed in March 2008.

Speaking this afternoon in the debates on resolutions were the delegates of Austria, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Portugal on behalf of the European Union, India, Myanmar, China, Russian Federation, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Egypt in its national capacity, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Pakistan in its national capacity, Bangladesh, Sudan, Switzerland, Malaysia, Jordan, Japan, Bolivia, Guatemala, Cuba, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Qatar, Morocco, Syria, United States, Armenia, and Algeria. Also speaking were Friends World Council for Consultation, and International Indian Treaty Council.

The seventh session of the Council will be held from 3 to 28 March 2008.

Action on Resolution on Mandate of Representative of Secretary-General on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.46) on the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons for a period of three years, in order to: address the complex problem of internal displacement, in particular by mainstreaming human rights of the internally displaced into all relevant parts of the United Nations system; and to work towards strengthening the international response to the complex problem of situations of internal displacement and engage in coordinated international advocacy and action for improving protection and respect of the human rights of the internally displaced, while continuing and enhancing dialogue with Governments, non-governmental organizations and other relevant actors. The Council requests the Representative, inter alia, to continue the analysis of the reasons for internal displacement, the needs and human rights of those displaced, the development of benchmarks for assessing when displacement ends, measures of prevention and ways to strengthen protection, assistance and durable solutions for internally displaced persons, taking into account specific situations and relevant information, including national data and statistics, and to include information thereon in his/her reports to the Council; to integrate a gender perspective throughout the work of the mandate and to give special consideration to the human rights of internally displaced women and children as well as other groups with special needs; to continue efforts to promote the consideration of the human rights and the specific protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons in peace processes; and to strengthen the cooperation established between the Representative of the Secretary-General and the United Nations, including in the framework of the Peacebuilding Commission, in particular his/her participation in the work of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee and its subsidiary bodies.

MICHAEL SCHOISWOHL (Austria), introducing draft resolution L.46, said since its initial establishment in 1992, the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons had contributed significantly to the strengthening of the international community’s response to internal displacement. The resolution built on the past achievements of the mandate, and would ensure that the Council retained its ability to effectively address the human rights dimension of internally displaced persons thereof in the future. The resolution envisaged the extension of the mandate for three years with specific terms of reference for the mandate holder. In conducting the assessment of the mandate, great emphasis had been put on transparency and open negotiations. Broad and intensive discussions had taken place. The resolution should be adopted without a vote.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a general comment, said Azerbaijan attached great importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur given the heavy caseload in the country. Azerbaijan supported the extension of the mandate for a further three years. The Special Rapporteur should take into due account the reasons and causes of internal displacement. This point was covered sufficiently in the draft resolution.

Azerbaijan strongly encouraged the mandate holder to continue advocacy efforts with international stakeholders and the broader international community to focus attention on instances of internally displaced persons arising from long-standing and protracted armed conflicts. Azerbaijan joined the consensus and hoped the resolution would be passed without a vote.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), speaking in a general comment, thanked Austria for its initiative. Indonesia was glad that a consensus had been achieved on this topic and hoped for it to continue. This mandate was a meaningful one and should be extended. Thus, Indonesia was pleased to join the consensus.

Action on Resolution on Follow-up to Report of Special Rapporteur on Myanmar

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.38) on follow-up to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur and expresses deep concern regarding its findings; strongly urges the Government of Myanmar to follow up and implement the recommendations contained in the report; requests the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar to conduct a follow-up mission to Myanmar before its seventh session in order to assess in greater detail the human rights violations that have occurred and are occurring as a result of the continued violent repression of recent peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar and to monitor the implementation of the present resolution; invites the Special Rapporteur to continue to discharge his mandate in a coordinated manner with the Special Envoy to Myanmar of the Secretary-General; urges the Government of Myanmar to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, including upon request other Special Procedures pertaining to the protection of vulnerable groups or the protection and promotion of civil and political or economic, social and cultural rights; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar with the adequate support, including expert human resources, to facilitate the fulfilment of the mandate entrusted to him; requests the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar to report to the Council at its seventh session; and decides to remain seized of this matter.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the text was forward-looking, but did not neglect past responsibilities, calling for full respect of human rights and an end to impunity. It highlighted the need for the authorities to open up dialogue with all national groups, with the aim of national reconciliation. This could only take place with the freeing of Aung San Suu Kyi. There was also concern that a large number of those held since the 12 September crackdown were still being held. The international community should remain seized of this issue, and urge the authorities of Myanmar to interact with the appropriate United Nations agencies. The Government should respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and bring to justice the authors of human rights violations, and release all political prisoners. The work of the Special Rapporteur was appreciated, and he should carry out a follow-up visit to assess the situation and urge the authorities to live up to the recommendations contained in his report. The text should be adopted by consensus, demonstrating the Council’s common endeavour to resolve the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India), speaking in a general comment, said that India had always sought to engage with the Government of Myanmar in a non-intrusive and constructive manner. The Government of Myanmar had made efforts to engage constructively with the Special Rapporteur and other representatives of the United Nations, and had initiated a dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

It was imperative for the international community and the Human Rights Council to encourage and build upon this spirit of cooperation. It would have been preferred that the draft resolution reflected further on this positive spirit of cooperation, but India would join the consensus to approve the draft resolution with the hope that further engagement would be undertaken in a more positive manner.

U NYUNT MAUNG SHEIN (Myanmar), in a general comment, said that in a spirit of cooperation with the Human Rights Council, Myanmar had invited and cooperated fully with the Special Rapporteur after the first resolution taken by the Council in October 2007. Now, a second resolution was being decided on, just two months after the first one. This was clearly putting pressure on the country and was done by countries with a political agenda. Myanmar’s friends, who had recognized the efforts of the Government, were thanked.

BO QIAN (China), in a general comment, said since the Special Session on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the situation in that country had improved, and positive steps had been made towards a peaceful resolution of the issue. That the Government had asked the Special Rapporteur to visit the country had shown that it was showing a positive attitude in cooperating with the international community, and the Council should recognise this. The various parties should work together to guarantee this positive trend, and encourage the Government to work with the United Nations. China had been participating with a constructive attitude on the consultations on the draft resolution, and hoped the draft would contribute to improving the dialogue between the Government and the Council. China would continue to play an active role in encouraging the peaceful process in Myanmar.

OLEG MALGINOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a general comment, thanked all the delegations that had shown flexibility which resulted in this forward-looking draft resolution. This had been helped by the cooperation of the Government of Myanmar with the Human Rights Council. The process of normalization of the situation was noted. Not everything in the draft was fully satisfactory, but adopting the resolution would have a stabilizing and salutatory influence on the situation in Myanmar. The resolution was supported on that basis.

Action on Resolution on Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Sudan

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.50) on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Sudan, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to extend for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan; urges the Government of Sudan to continue cooperating fully with the Special Rapporteur and to respond favourably to her requests to visit Sudan and to provide her with all necessary information so as to enable her to fulfil her mandate even more effectively; requests the Special Rapporteur to assess the needs of Sudan in the context of her mandate and to mobilize the necessary international technical and financial support for Sudan in the field of human rights, and invites relevant United Nations bodies and agencies to continue providing support and technical assistance to Sudan in the field of human rights; also requests the Special Rapporteur to submit her outstanding annual report to the Council at its seventh session in March 2008 and her following report to the Council at its ninth session in September 2008; and further requests the Special Rapporteur to ensure effective follow-up and to foster the implementation of the remaining short-term and the medium-term recommendations identified in the first report of the Group of Experts (A/HRC/5/6) through an open and constructive dialogue with the Government of Sudan, taking into account the final report of the Group of Experts (A/HRC/6/19) and the replies of the Government thereon, and to include information in this regard in her report to the Council at its ninth session.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), introducing the draft resolution L.50 on behalf of the African Group, said that the resolution extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for Sudan for one year. It urged the Government of Sudan to fully cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. The African Group maintained its opposition to country specific mandates, due also to the politicization stemming out of them. Still, the African Group respected the specific desires of countries to get support and, thus was encouraging the extension of the mandate. The African Group also recognized the positive developments on the ground and encouraged the Sudanese Government to continue its collaboration.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, said the European Union remained deeply concerned about the situation of human rights in Sudan, and despite cooperation by the Government, noted that human rights violations continued to take place in the country. It was the duty of the Council to pay particular attention to the situation, and it was therefore with satisfaction that agreement had been reached between the African Group and the European Union. All delegations should adopt the resolution by consensus. If adopted, the resolution would allow the Special Rapporteur to continue the very good work undertaken until now to monitor the situation of human rights in Sudan. This would allow the work of the Group of Experts to have a continuation that would lead to an effective improvement of the human rights situation in Darfur. The European Union appealed to the Government of Sudan to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and intensify all measures necessary to improve the situation of human rights in all of Sudan.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, thanked Egypt and Portugal and their collaborators for their efforts in reaching a consensus decision on the resolution. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur had been extended for one year and had been given some special tasks. The Organization of the Islamic Conference hoped that the Special Rapporteur would continue an open and constructive dialogue with Sudan. Sudan was urged to continue its efforts to implement the recommendations of the Group of Experts in order to improve the situation on the ground.

YURI BOICHENKO (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said that the Russian Federation was pleased that consensus had been reached and considered that this balanced approach by the Council would help promote the dialogue between the Council and the Government of Sudan. The consensus had been reached thanks to the African Group and the European Union. It was hoped that this resolution would help improve the situation in Darfur.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said Bangladesh was pleased that consensus had been reached on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan. It showed that consensus could be reached if there was sufficient flexibility. Bangladesh particularly appreciated the Government of Sudan for cooperating with the United Nations and its mechanisms, and for supporting the extension of the mandate, and urged it to continue to do so, in order to improve the situation of the people of Sudan.

BO QIAN (China), speaking in a general comment, appreciated the flexibility of all parties in their efforts to achieve consensus on the adoption of the resolution. China hoped that this approach would be maintained in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Council.

ABDELDAEIM ZUMRAWI (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, said that Sudan had no doubt that the socio-economic unrest in Darfur could have resulted in an atmosphere that could have created possible human rights violations. But some countries had been against peace and supported the war through arms trafficking and the media. Everyone knew which countries these were. The African Group and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference were thanked for their efforts to eliminate politicisation from the current process. Still, some countries had turned a blind eye to what had caused the collapse of the former Commission on Human Rights. Switzerland was also thanked for its valuable contributions.

Action on Resolution on Group of Experts on Darfur

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.51) on the Human Rights Council Group of Experts on the situation of human rights in Darfur, adopted without a vote, the Council acknowledges the efforts by Sudan to implement the recommendations identified by the Group of Experts, but expresses its concern that the implementation of many recommendations has not been fully completed; expresses particular concern at the fact that perpetrators of past and ongoing serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur have not yet been held accountable for their crimes and urges Sudan to address urgently this question, by thoroughly investigating all allegations of human rights and international humanitarian law violations, promptly bringing to justice the perpetrators of those violations; urges the Government to continue and to intensify its efforts to implement the recommendations identified by the Group of Experts in accordance with the specified time frames and indicators; reiterates its call upon all parties to put an end to all acts of violence against civilians, with special focus on vulnerable groups, including women, children and internally displaced persons, as well as human rights defenders and humanitarian workers; calls upon the signatories of the Darfur Peace Agreement to comply with their obligations under the Agreement, acknowledges the measures already taken towards its implementation and calls upon non-signatory parties to participate and to commit themselves to the Peace Agreement, in compliance with relevant resolutions of the United Nations, including paragraph 5 of Human Rights Council resolution 4/8.

SAMEH SHOUKRY, (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, presenting draft resolution L.51, said the text before the Council was the result of a laborious process, and despite the well-known problems and sensitivities, a draft had been reached which had been made possible by the spirit of compromise and flexibility. Recognizing the relevant facts and improvement of the human rights situation in Darfur, the resolution acknowledged the cooperation of the Government on Darfur, and its efforts to implement the recommendations made by the Group of Experts. The resolution urged the Government to continue to do so, and urged all parties to put an end to acts of violence against civilians. All non-parties to the Peace Agreement should accede to it. The resolution should be read in conjunction with L.50. The African Group reiterated its satisfaction at the joint success achieved, and looked forward to the adoption of the resolution by consensus. Efforts to enhance the protection and promotion of human rights by the Council should remain firmly anchored in a cooperative approach in order to fulfil the needs of those in need.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the compilation of the dispersed United Nations recommendations to improve the grave human rights situation in Darfur and the elaboration of timeframes and indicators for their implementation represented a significant step forward. Sudan was urged to continue with the implementation of the recommendations of the Group of Experts and to continue to cooperate with the Group.

The persistence of impunity in Sudan was particularity worrying and Sudan was urged to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. Adopting the draft resolution by consensus would send a clear signal of continuing concern over the human rights situation in Darfur.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), in a general comment on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, welcomed the consensus reached and thanked the European Union and the African Group for their persistence and their hard work, as well as the work of the Group of Experts. The report of the Group of Experts had reflected the efforts done by Sudan. The current resolution recognised these efforts. The Experts had fulfilled their tasks.

ABDELDAEIM ZUMRAWI (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, said the Government had been working on the protection of human rights in Sudan, and had made a number of procedures in this matter, including the Peace Agreement in the Eastern and Southern area, putting an end to the war there. These agreements had created a political and legal situation that guaranteed all the major principles internationally known in the field of human rights. The Government of Sudan was interested in the protection and promotion of human rights, and cooperated positively and fully with the Group of Experts. It had clarified a number of facts that were not clear to the Group. A number of positive steps had been taken, and recognised by the Group, to enhance human rights. The judiciary in Sudan was fully capable of prosecuting anyone and making them accountable for human rights violations.

Comments at the End of Consideration of Item 4 on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said Switzerland had said earlier that it was in favour of maintaining the mandate, which was fully justified by the need to support the promotion of human rights in Sudan. Switzerland had decided to co-sponsor the draft resolution as it now included the specific follow-up of the recommendations of the Group of Experts on the situation of human rights in Darfur. The task of the Special Rapporteur was very heavy and she could continue to count on the support of Switzerland in her work.

AMRAN MOHAMMED ZIN (Malaysia) said Malaysia welcomed the spirit of consensus on L. 38. This consensus was important in order to continue having a discussion and cooperation between Myanmar and the Council. Myanmar was encouraged to continue its efforts. On L.51, the positive engagement and dialogue between United Nations and Sudan was recognised.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said with regards to L.38, Indonesia was pleased at the consensus on this resolution, which pertained to the follow-up to the report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. There was a need to have a forward-looking resolution containing a practical approach to the situation, ensuring that the authorities of Myanmar would continue to engage constructively with the Council. The resolution would enhance the credibility and unity of the Council. It was hoped this spirit would continue.

BASHAR ABU TALEB (Jordan) said Jordan was pleased that the draft resolutions on Sudan were adopted by consensus and thanked Sudan for its constructive efforts. It was hoped that these efforts would continue with a goal of alleviating the suffering of the people of Sudan

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said Japan was happy that consensus had been reached on Myanmar. Japan hoped that Myanmar would continue the spirit of collaboration. Japan would not forget what had happened and would always keep an eye on what was happening in Myanmar. On Sudan, it was hoped that the Government of the Sudan would implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.

Action on Resolution on Mechanism on Indigenous Peoples

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.42/Rev.1) on an expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to establish a mechanism to provide the Council with thematic expertise on the human rights of indigenous peoples in the manner and form requested by the Council, as follows: thematic expertise will focus mainly on studies and research-based advice; the mechanism will suggest proposals to the Council for its consideration and approval; and the mechanism will also cooperate with other relevant United Nations regional and national mechanisms, bodies and agencies to review, elaborate and follow up on best practices as well as on obstacles to the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ human rights. The Council also decides that this mechanism shall report annually to the Council on its work; decides that the expert mechanism shall consist of five independent members; decides that the selection and appointment of the above-mentioned experts shall be carried out in accordance with the special procedures of the Council, established in paragraphs 39 to 53 of the annex to its resolution 5/1; also decides that the members of the expert mechanism shall serve for one three-year period and may serve for one additional period; and decides that the expert mechanism shall meet once annually for five working days to contribute to the work of the Council with regard to the human rights of indigenous peoples.

ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia), introducing draft resolution L.42/Rev.1, said the rights of indigenous peoples would be supported as long as it was necessary. The speaker then introduced a range of oral amendments to the text.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said that the draft resolution reflected the interests of States with connection to this topic. Much effort had been made by many parties in meetings to develop the draft resolution and they were thanked on behalf of all the indigenous people that would benefit from the resolution. It was hoped that the resolution would be adopted by consensus.

YURI BOICHENKO (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation supported this resolution, which was the result of difficult negotiations. Still, consensus had been reached. This showed that States could collaborate and find solutions. Guatemala and Bolivia were thanked for their efforts.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba thanked Bolivia for the efforts made in regards to this resolution. Cuba would have preferred a more overall, inclusive scope to the resolution. Cuba was worried about the text, which said that the new mechanism would focus on studies and expert advice, and considered that there was already a group of experts of the Human Rights Council, and that any type of work on indigenous topics was very important. The consideration of other issues should not be disregarded, especially those previously considered by the Sub-Commission. Full importance should be given to the representatives of indigenous organizations, representing the indigenous peoples and the communities. Cuba would continue to work to see that the mandate could be carried out in a comprehensive manner and would truly take care of the indigenous peoples.

ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia), in a general comment, said that Bolivia was fully in support of creating a mechanism for supporting the rights of indigenous people. Unfortunately, basic points could not be agreed to. Bolivia would have preferred a resolution that gave an impulse to the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the United Nations.

Bolivia clarified that it would continue to support the rights of indigenous people and the work of the Forum. The work of all delegations to achieve this final resolution was recognized, and Brazil was thanked for sponsoring the resolution. The process had enabled Bolivia to work directly with the indigenous peoples represented in the Forum for the first time. However, Bolivia requested to withdraw its name from the resolution as a co-sponsor, while reserving the right to return to these issues later.


Action on Resolution on Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

In a resolution (A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1) on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, none against, and 18 abstentions, the Council concludes that there is a need for the continued contribution of the Special Rapporteur to the protection, promotion and universal implementation of the right to freedom of religion or belief; decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further period of three years and, in this context, invites the Special Rapporteur: to promote the adoption of measures at the national, regional and international levels to ensure the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief; to identify existing and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief and present recommendations on ways and means to overcome such obstacles; to continue her/his efforts to examine incidents and governmental actions that are incompatible with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and to recommend remedial measures as appropriate; and to continue to apply a gender perspective, inter alia, through the identification of gender-specific abuses, in the reporting process, including in information collection and in recommendations. The Council requests the Special Rapporteur to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session; and also requests the Special Rapporteur to submit the outstanding reports to the Council in accordance with its annual programme of work and the next annual report in 2009.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (29): Angola, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Italy, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.

Abstentions (18): Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and introducing draft resolution L.15/Rev.1, said that this resolution condemned all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief and urged States to take measures to put an end to it. One of the core elements was the extension for three years of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. Maximum efforts had been done to achieve consensus. Unfortunately, fundamental divergences of views on some points had made it impossible to achieve consensus. Co-sponsors had been forced to conclude that negotiation efforts had been exhausted. Still the constructiveness of all delegations was welcomed. The withdrawal of document L.49 that contained proposed amendments to L.15/Rev.1 was welcomed. Members were encouraged to vote in favour of the resolution.

OLEG MALGUINOV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said the Russian Federation had carefully followed the activity of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. This was a very important issue to Russia. Recently the world community had been taking many steps to reduce distrust and religious intolerance, and to build bridges between civilizations. This resolution was consistent with that movement, and was aimed at overcoming dangerous stereotypes, remnants of hatred, and attitudes that had in the past caused dangerous cataclysms and wars. With the intent of overcoming cultural barriers, the efforts of many delegations to enrich the content of the resolution were greatly appreciated. Russia considered that it was very important to respect the centuries of spiritual traditions of civilizations and world religions, many of which had become sources for basic concepts and concepts of human rights. It was in the area of freedom of expression that the inter-religious and inter-civilisation dialogue had been taking place. If the amendments by the Islamic countries had been submitted for consideration, Russia would have supported them, and it hoped that in the future, further efforts would be made to enrich the resolution.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in a general comment, said that Cuba was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution. Intolerance and discrimination were not accepted in any form. Co-sponsorship of the draft resolution did not imply that Cuba was necessarily in agreement with every detail. Cuba regretted that a draft resolution that talked about tolerance had been caught up in intolerance.

Some lessons should be learned from this situation, including a failure of methods. What was needed was a new way of working, beyond co-sponsorship, in order to achieve consensus. Having said that, Cuba would vote in favour of the draft resolution.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), underlined that the OIC opposed all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief and had consistently supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Also, the OIC did do not have a problem with the general thrust of the resolution, but still had some concerns of fundamental importance. The OIC had entered into serious negotiations with the European Union and the sponsors had reflected some of their concerns. Despite this, they had not been able to resolve their differences on five important issues, including a clear pronouncement of the recent instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions in the media and respect for national laws and religious norms about the right to change one’s religion. Because of divergences in these areas, the OIC asked for a vote and said it would abstain on it. They had not pressed their amendments, despite considerable support for them, as they believed that proposals of such importance ought to be adopted by consensus. The OIC dissociated itself from the phrase “including the right to change one’s religion or belief”. This phrase was not considered operative in its legal validity or effect by the OIC. However they would continue dialogue on these issues of vital importance.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Egypt attached great importance to the freedom of religion, and had been a traditional supporter of the resolution, while maintaining that it should be applied within the context of the tenets of Islam. Egypt had frequently during the negotiations expressed concern with regards to the text - of particular concern was the way in which it approached the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, in total disregard of the agreements reached during the institution-building process. It was not possible to continue consultations, as the European Union had circumvented the discussion with the Third Committee. Egypt had however continued to remain engaged in the process. The efforts made by some delegations to bridge gaps were acknowledged. However, it had become apparent during the later stages that some of the more important suggestions by the OIC would not be accommodated. Egypt regretted that the Council seemed to have missed a historic opportunity to comprehensively address the issue of religious intolerance, and hoped the issue would be considered in the future. Egypt would abstain from a vote on the text.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Azerbaijan supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and belief and supported the extension of the mandate for a further three years. However, it had not been possible for the co-sponsors to take on the concerns of various Member and Observer States of the Human Rights Council. The increasing tendency for negative stereotyping based on religious belief should not be ignored or left out of the whole picture. The required balance had not been reached and Azerbaijan would abstain in the vote to be requested by other delegations.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the current text did not reflect the concerns of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and thus, Indonesia would abstain from the vote.

PITSO MONTWEDI (South Africa), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the resolution presented some challenges to South Africa. Its terms of reference did not reflect all the issues pertinent to the mandate, and it did not conform to the minimum requirements for a structured format in the context of the reform, rationalisation and improvement of mandates. The terms of reference of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur with regards to the key issue of monitoring the role played by the media in inciting religious hatred were ignored. A strengthened mandate would allow the Council to contribute better to the protection of victims of human rights violations, the maximising of remedies, the minimising of impunity and maintaining the delicate exercise of balance in the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief as juxtaposed to the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. South Africa would therefore abstain from the vote.

ABDULLAH ABBAS RASHWAN (Saudi Arabia), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, commented that the draft resolution did not include certain essential points relating to certain religions. A resolution that went against the Sharia law could not be accepted by Saudi Arabia. Those who had submitted the resolution should consider the tenets of some religions that were not compatible with the existing text.

BABACAR CARLOS MBAYE (Senegal), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Senegal was in favour of the promotion of tolerance between religions. The resolution was seen as dealing with a sensitive subject and its adoption could address very important issues. Nevertheless, the position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference was understood. Senegal would abstain from the vote but this would not prevent the continuation of dialogue and the strengthening of dialogue. This review would enable the Council to make significant headway towards achieving the goal of the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.

MUTAZ FALEH S. HYASSAT (Jordan), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Jordan was fully committed to the protection and promotion of the freedom of religion or belief, and regretted that consensus had been elusive. It would have been possible if the issues that were of fundamental importance to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and to Jordan had been addressed. A clear pronouncement on the deliberate stereotyping of religions in the media, spelling out that freedom of expression should not be used to smear other norms such as respect for religion, among others, would have helped. Without these, consensus on the texts could not have been reached. The draft was a victim of its own broad scope and nature. The way the ideas and themes had been juxtaposed upon each other had compromised the clarity and cogency of the draft. Despite the fact that the draft contained some positive elements, Jordan regretfully had to abstain in the vote.

MANSOOR ABDULLA S. AL-SULAITIN (Qatar), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated the great importance Qatar attached to all human rights. Qatar believed in the promotion of all freedoms and rights. Qatar endorsed the statement of the Organization of Islamic Conference but it would abstain in the vote on the draft resolution as it did not call for respect for all religions as it should, including respect for Sharia and Islamic law.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Bangladesh had always supported the protection of faith and belief. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur ought to be renewed. But Bangladesh had expressed some concerns on the draft resolution. It was appreciated that the co-sponsors had included some of their concerns. Still, the most important concerns had not been incorporated. Thus, although Bangladesh supported the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, it could not join consensus on this matter and would abstain in the vote.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Malaysia, which was a country with a multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious society, had consistently advocated the freedom of religion or belief, and had practiced this. Given the current international climate, the Council should address the concerns contained in the amendments proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Since these were not taken into account by the main sponsors of the draft, Malaysia would abstain from the vote.

Comments at the End of Taking Action on Resolutions

OSAMU YAMANAKA (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, expressed Japan’s sincere appreciation for the efforts of Brazil in their sponsorship of the resolution on the elaboration of human rights voluntary goals to be launched on the occasion of the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, Japan was not sure of the need to establish an additional intergovernmental mechanism for this process. Nevertheless, in the spirit of consensus, Japan had joined the consensus.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), addressing the draft resolution L.51/Rev.1, regretted that the efforts undertaken had not been able to address several issues that had been raised by delegations. These issues were dealing with sensitive aspects and should have deserved more attention. Morocco had always supported the mandate under revision as well as freedom of religion and belief. It had been hoped that consensus could have been reached. It was hoped that today’s decision would not prevent further efforts to achieve consensus on a question vital for all mankind.

RANIA AL-RIFAIY (Syria), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said with regards to L.50 and L.51, the consensus was welcomed, and Syria hoped that consensus would prevail in all decisions of the Council. The flexibility of the delegation of Sudan was appreciated. It was hoped the Special Rapporteur would deal with all problems in Darfur in a comprehensive manner. Any reference to unconstructive or destructive criticism was rejected, as were sanctions against Sudan. The international community and the Council in particular were responsible for presenting the situation in a suitable manner.

WARREN TICHENOR (United States) said the United States was pleased that the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs that were under review had all been extended. The people of Sudan continued to suffer due to their Government’s lack of respect for human rights. It was disappointing that the Group of Experts had been discontinued and that the additional burden had been placed on the Special Rapporteur. Three times the Human Rights Council has called on Sudan to uphold its commitments to human rights and Sudan had still failed to act on the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur and the Group of Experts.

There was concern that some Governments still maintained restrictions on the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and the United States hoped that, as the mandate reviews continued, the Council would continue to maintain the mandates and give them the resources they needed.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) welcomed the adoption of the resolution on the extension of the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human right of internally displaced persons. The members of the Human Rights Council were commended for their work. Armenia called for the Council and Member States to further support this mandate.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that with regards to L.15/Rev.1, Algeria had always been a country where religions had met, in tolerance, and this was historically proven. Its tradition of tolerance began a very long time ago, and it had always been convinced of the virtues of religious dialogue. It was therefore unfortunate that the only text that was not adopted by consensus today was on intolerance. The Council was giving a negative message to the world. Respect of religion was one of the key elements of a fruitful dialogue. Developing countries had had to swallow a lot of changes to their own societies with regards to human rights, and had asked for some minor changes with regards to the way people perceived life in the developing countries - and there had been no reciprocation. Freedom of expression was compatible with the prohibition in law of statements conducive to incitement of violence and hatred - the text should have been able to include this.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER), in a joint statement with Asian Legal Resource Centre; Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies; International Service for Human Rights; Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions; Action Canada for Population and Development; Conectas Direitos Humanos; and Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO), welcomed the successful review and extension of a number of mandates at this session. Continuing problems with scheduling and time management had again impinged on the contributions of both non-governmental organizations and Special Procedures. The Council needed to address the substance of the reports presented to it in order to effect real changes in the promotion and protection of human rights.

ANDREA CARMEN, of International Indian Treaty Council, said that, on indigenous people, they expressed their appreciation for the adoption of a resolution for the creation of a new expert mechanism on indigenous people. This was a step forward to the full inclusion of indigenous people into the United Nations system. The Government of Bolivia was thanked for its support and collaboration with indigenous people. The International Indian Treaty Council looked forward to the further collaboration with the Council to ensure that this new mechanism would ensure the protection of the human rights of indigenous people.

Concluding Remarks by the President of the Council

Doru Romulus Costea, President of the Council, in concluding remarks, said a lot of work had been done during the session, and a lot of resolutions had been adopted, most of them by consensus. He invited all present to remember what the representative of Algeria had just said with regards to the irony of the situation, as this was worth remembering. China had also made a wise remark in which he wished that more and more resolutions were adopted by consensus. Mr. Costea would believe that the Council had had a good result if it had achieved consensus on what it agreed, and on what it agreed upon in order to agree. Consensus was desirable, and had proven in many cases to be efficient. Results were achieved, and were largely attained because they were backed by consensual decisions. However, consensus for its own sake and no matter what cost was a trap which would lead at the end of the day to bereavement of value and significance. The Council needed to find the proper way. The middle, where the Council should meet, had to be on an ascending line - better and better values.

Among the adopted resolutions, some texts renewed mandates and Special Procedures, and four created new human rights mechanisms. The process was clear for the reform, rationalisation and improvement of mandates, but some procedural issues needed further examination. The uniqueness and specificity of each mandate required further examination. This work could take place outside the Council. As it was a Member-driven process, the Member States could consider beginning their preparations before the next session - and not leave informal consultations on mandates until the end of February 2008. Interactive dialogue could continue to be held in a different package. The final reports of all mandate holders would be taken into consideration as a good opportunity of analysis within the process. As important were the assessments by the mandate holders of the opportunities and challenges of their work.

New mandate holders would begin to be appointed in March 2008. There was a list of vacancies in mandates where the holders had finished their term. Appointments would take place in the context of the institution-building package. The next important moment would be the troika of the Universal Periodic Review. Further discussions would take place to clarify some technical aspects with regards to the election of the members of the troika and some elements of their job description. All were to be congratulated for their work over the last week.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07090E