HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON CONFERENCE FACILITIES AND PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT ON TERMS OF OFFICE OF MANDATE HOLDERS

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted a resolution on conference facilities and financial support to the Human Rights Council and a Presidential statement on terms of office of Special Procedure mandate holders. The Council also started to take action on a draft resolution on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In the resolution on conference facilities and financial support for the Human Rights Council, adopted by consensus, the Council reaffirmed the need to ensure the provision of necessary financial resources to the Council and its Working Groups in order to discharge its mandate fully. It expressed its concern at the delays in the submission of documents to the Council, and in particular the delays in the translation of documents. It also reaffirmed that it would consider favourably the adoption of a decision on the webcasting of all public proceedings of its various Working Groups.

In the Presidential statement on terms in office of Special Procedure mandate holders, adopted by consensus, the Council said a Special Procedure mandate holder’s tenure would not exceed six years in a particular position. The Human Rights Council guaranteed the integrity and independence of the system of Special Procedures and would follow-up on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Special Procedure mandate holders.

The Council then started to take action on a draft resolution on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Speaking on the draft resolution were Portugal, the United Kingdom, Germany, Egypt, South Africa, Romania, Qatar on behalf of the Arab Group, Mexico, Switzerland and China.

Jordan spoke in a general comment on organizational and procedural matters.

The Human Rights Council will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue to take action on remaining draft decisions and resolutions and to appoint a number of Special Procedure mandate holders before it concludes its eighth regular session.

Resolution on Organizational and Procedural Matters

In a resolution (A/HRC/8/L.3) on conference facilities and financial support for the Human Rights Council, adopted by consensus, as orally amended, the Council reaffirms the need to ensure the provision of necessary financial resources to the Council and its Working Groups in order to discharge its mandate fully; expresses its concern at the delays in the submission of documents to the Council, and in particular the delays in the translation of documents, and in this context requests OHCHR and the Conference Services Division in Geneva to make an assessment of the situation and to report back to the Council at its ninth session with proposals to address these problems; reaffirms that the Council will consider favourably the adoption of a decision on the webcasting of all public proceedings of its various Working Groups, and, in this context, requests the Department of Public Information of the United Nations Office at Geneva to make an assessment of the situation and to report back to the Council at its ninth session with proposals for adequate measures, including by the necessary resources to establish a permanent capacity for webcasting.

Presidential Statement on Terms in Office of Special Procedure Mandate Holders

In a Presidential statement agreed upon by consensus on terms in office of Special Procedure mandate holders, the Council states that in accordance with General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions, a Special Procedure mandate holder’s tenure will not exceed six years in a particular position. The Human Rights Council guarantees the integrity and independence of the system of Special Procedures; and will also follow up on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Special Procedure mandate holders. In this regard, the President will convey to the Human Rights Council information brought to his or her attention including inter alia, by States and/or by the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, concerning cases of persistent non compliance by a mandate holder with the provisions of resolution 5/2, especially prior to the renewal of mandate holders in office; such information will be considered and appropriate action will be taken; in the absence of the said information, the terms of office shall be extended for a second three year term.

General Statement on Organizational and Procedural Matters

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan), in a general statement, congratulated the President for his tenure. Jordan paid tribute to the President’s efforts regarding the Presidential statement. Jordan would live up to the text and agree to consensus. It would bring to the floor specific information regarding a mandate holder in the afternoon meeting.

Action on Draft Resolution on Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), introducing the draft resolution on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said the Human Rights Council was in a unique position to address the historical imbalance between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights by accepting this draft resolution, which adopted and recommended to the United Nations General Assembly to adopt the annexed Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Optional Protocol created no new substantive rights and was optional by nature. The adoption of this new instrument would send an extremely significant signal. Portugal believed the present text to be the best possible compromise. It respected that some States would not be in a position to envisage becoming parties to the instrument, but it also expected that no obstacles would be put to those who wanted to have this new mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), in a general comment, said that the United Kingdom had concerns about the draft Optional Protocol which had been presented to the Council for adoption. Since the Chairperson of the Working Group presented her final report to the Council, Articles 2 and 11 of the Optional Protocol had been amended, allowing individuals to bring complaints alleging a violation by a State Party of “any of the economic, social and cultural rights in the Covenant”, and to allow the Committee to conduct inquiries into allegations of grave or systematic violations of those rights. The United Kingdom interpreted the amendment to refer to the rights in Part III. They did not consider that the amendment allowed individuals to bring claims for, or the Committee to conduct inquiries in respect of, a violation by a State Party of the right to self-determination in common Article 1 of the International Covenants. Having clearly laid out their position, the United Kingdom would join consensus on the current text.

GREGOR SCHOTTEN (Germany), in a general comment, welcomed the adoption of the draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the Working Group and its transmission to the Human Rights Council. Germany also thanked the Chair of the Working Group. Germany fully supported the Optional Protocol and was a co-sponsor to the resolution. It believed the time had come to establish a complaints mechanism for violations to economic, social and cultural rights. This would lead to the enhancement of these rights. Germany reaffirmed that economic, social and cultural rights contained obligations to States that were immediate. Group rights could not be brought to an individual rights procedure.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), in a general comment, said that the draft marked a laborious work of five years. The leadership of the Chair of the Working Group was welcomed. The tireless efforts of the Portuguese delegation were also commended. The adoption of the Optional Protocol would help to reinforce rights that had for long been overlooked. It was timely to take this step which would enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in the year of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The text of the Optional Protocol reaffirmed all provisions contained in the Covenant. The adoption of the Optional Protocol was only the beginning. Egypt would have to look into all implications before acceding to the Optional Protocol. It was hoped that the Optional Protocol would be adopted by consensus.

PITSO MONTWEDI (South Africa), in a general comment, said that in South Africa, economic, social and cultural rights were not only constitutionally guaranteed but they were also justicable. All human rights were inextricably linked. South Africa thanked Portugal for its leadership in the negotiations process under difficult circumstances. They would have preferred a stronger Optional Protocol that addressed the status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This would ensure that all provisions regarding the establishment of the Optional Protocol would be addressed. South Africa intended to initiate a process aimed at ratifying the legal status of the Committee and part four of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which in many views was obsolete. In the spirit of working together and flexibility and despite the hopes for a stronger instrument, South Africa would support the consensus on the current text.

LAURA ONISII (Romania), in a general comment, said that Romania joined the consensus to adopt the draft resolution on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Romania welcomed this new legal instrument that strengthened the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, while further underlining the indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights. It would be a tool to improve the realization of all human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Vienna Declaration. Romania believed the Optional Protocol, as adopted by the Working Group, was a constructive and balanced text. It regretted the text had been reopened during the negotiations on the draft resolution. In Romania’s opinion, this did not set a precedent for the United Nations mechanisms on human rights and specifically for the Human Rights Council method of work. Romania believed that the Human Rights Council must avoid breaking, in the future, agreements reached after many efforts and time spent for a consensual outcome.

ABDULLA FALAH ABDULLA AL-DOSARI (Qatar), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, in a general comment, thanked the Chair of the Working Group for the draft Optional Protocol and her efforts were welcomed. The Portuguese delegation was thanked for its flexibility and efforts. The Arab Group hoped the resolution would be adopted.

MABEL GOMEZ OLIVER (Mexico), in a general comment on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, said that they would like to address the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These rights should have the exact importance of other human rights. The Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries had always defended the interconnectedness and interrelation of all human rights. They had been active participants in the last five years of negotiations on the Optional Protocol. The draft sought to enshrine the compromise that had been achieved by the international community and had been built on by the Vienna Declaration. This was a response for a fairer world and in this context this would be a tangible contribution to the development of economic and social rights. As the sixtieth celebration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was approaching and following the adoption of the Optional Protocol by the General Assembly, they were certain that the provisions would be implemented by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All delegations who participated would be able to move into a new era of human rights.

ALEXANDRA RUPPEN (Switzerland), in a general comment, said Switzerland recognized that all rights were universal, interdependent and indivisible. Economic, social and cultural rights were the rights most capable of development and Switzerland was interested in seeing them developed. It would not oppose the consensus. The process had gone beyond the Working Group which endangered the work of the Working Group. Switzerland assumed the Optional Protocol was designed to recognize individual rights. It sought to apply these rights. Switzerland believed that the Optional Protocol regarded rights which an individual enjoyed. It did not cover self-determination. It was for individual communications. Switzerland rejected the a la carte proposal.


OLEG MALGINOV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said that the Russian Federation was ready to join the consensus on this draft resolution. The Russian Federation considered that the Working Group had completed its very hard work, which had led to an important and effective document. The adoption of the Optional Protocol would provide for the consideration of individual communications. Unfortunately, following the completion of the Working Group, the text had been subjected to fundamental changes and amended with changes not agreed to by the Working Group. The Russian Federation noted that they had raised issues with regard to the territorial sovereignty of States.

QIAN BO (China), in a general comment, thanked Portugal for its efforts and important contributions on this draft resolution. The Optional Protocol was a result of comprise and many challenges. China believed that economic, social and cultural rights occupied an important place in fundamental human rights and the achievement of these rights. With regard to the a la carte approach, countries should act according to their own resources, and should be able to decide which rights should be included or addressed based on their capacities. China noted that the establishment of a fund would greatly benefit developing countries to better implement programmes and achieve their goals. It would further encourage the spirit of cooperation. Part I of the Covenant referred to the right to self-determination which had been brought into the scope of the Optional Protocol. This was an important right that helped maintain sovereignty and people’s dignity. This should not be the pretext for splitting States and inciting hatred.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08079E