HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES AGENDA ITEMS ON HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES AND MECHANISMS AND THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms, under which it hear presentations by the Chairpersons of the Advisory Committee and the Social Forum. It also opened the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, underlined the progress made and the excellent results achieved during the first session of the Advisory Committee that took place from 1 to 15 August. The Advisory Committee had made some recommendations to the Human Rights Council, including those related to the right to food, the right to education, and the need to harmonize the approach to women’s issues throughout the United Nations system. Further, it had recommended that the Human Rights Council and the United Nations Secretary-General exercise their good offices for the benefit of so-called refugees of hunger and to make an urgent call to Member States to increase their contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Mousa Burayzat, the Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Social Forum, said the Social Forum met from 1 to 3 September and discussed many topics: human rights and extreme poverty; foreign debt, international trade policies and poverty reduction; the role and responsibility of the State, non governmental organizations and transnational corporations in poverty eradication; decent work conditions; corruption; access to affordable essential drugs and health care; issues of climate change, food security and poverty; and the last international food crisis, right to food and poverty. The list of possible remedies discussed at the Forum included economic policies at the national level, empowering the poor, education and others.

In the general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms, speakers welcomed the launch of the Advisory Committee, noting it had marked an important step in completing the Human Rights Council institution-building phase. The Advisory Committee’s work on human rights education and the right to food and freedom from hunger was welcomed. The Advisory Committee had an important role to play as a think tank in the United Nations human rights system and the Human Rights Council had an obligation to ensure resources and independence for it to carry out its work successfully. Several speakers addressed the question of pending studies of the Sub-Commission. On the work of the Social Forum, speakers noted that it had focused on the topics that could be seen as the most salient causes of poverty. One speaker said that theoretical discourses must be translated into implementable strategies and ways and means had to be found to provide key technical support and capacity building for countries and agencies in need. The United Nations had to be able to rely on the financial support it needed in order to develop and coordinate international efforts to tackle poverty.

Speaking in the general debate were France on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Brazil, India, Japan, Switzerland, Cuba, Republic of Korea, Chile, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Nigeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, China, Malaysia, Latvia, Morocco and Venezuela.

Also speaking were representatives of the following non governmental organizations: International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, Indian Council of South America, International Educational Development, International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, International PEN, European Union of Public Relations, International Institute for Peace, International Service for Human Rights, World Peace Council, Universal Esperanto Association, and Association of World Citizens.

The Council also opened its general debate on the Universal Periodic Review. One speaker said that one year after the Human Rights Council had adopted the institution-building package, 32 States had undergone the Universal Periodic Review. While it was still too soon to assess its impact on the ground, a number of lessons could already be drawn from the first sessions. Another speaker indicated that the African Group had not objected to the inclusion of the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review on the agenda of the Human Rights Council with the understanding that it would not be used as a follow up to the Universal Periodic Review cycles which the Council had conducted so far. Another speaker raised the issue of forms and procedures and said that the institution-building text was clear on the process of the Universal Periodic Review and no further layers of procedures were necessary.

Speaking in the general debate were France on behalf of the European Union, Egypt on behalf of the African Group and Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention by hearing Algeria, Japan and Morocco exercise their right of reply.

When the Council resumes its work at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 18 September, it is scheduled to continue the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review and to hold an interactive dialogue with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who will be presenting a follow-up to the Human Rights Council’s third special session. Time permitting, the Council will open the discussion on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab Territories.


Presentation by Chairperson of Advisory Committee

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, presented an oral report on the work of the first session of the Advisory Committee, and underlined the progress made and the excellent results achieved during the session that took place from 1 to 15 August 2008. Mr. Martinez said that the launch of the Advisory Committee was brought about with full respect for what was indicated by the Human Rights Council in terms of the mandate and the assignments as described in the relevant resolution. This was essential to the work of the Advisory Committee, as a full understanding at the start would contribute to positive work relations and would help them avoid additional problems. The Advisory Committee was subordinate to the Human Rights Council and there were no frictions. All members had borne in mind the need to combine change with continuity. Mr. Martinez said it was important to remember the fact that there was no gap between young and old, experienced and inexperienced, as all members were new in facing the new institution and immediately came to the conclusion that there were no reasons for divides and everyone had adapted to the changing reality.

The possibility to explore all modalities for work that had been indicated by the Human Rights Council had brought about excellent results. The cooperation of virtually all colleagues made it possible to register the progress, while the par excellence support provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was essential for having productive sessions.

The Advisory Committee had made recommendations, with the view to get a foretaste of what should be studied by the Council in March 2009. Some of those included recommendations related to the right to food, the right to education, and the need to harmonize the approach to women's issues throughout the United Nations system, among others. The Advisory Committee needed the Human Rights Council to take decisions on some concrete questions and recommendations, such as the recommendation to the Human Rights Council and the United Nations Secretary-General to exercise their good offices for the benefit of so-called refugees of hunger. There was also the need to make an urgent call to Member States to increase their contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Advisory Committee also recommended that the Working Group on the Right to Food complete their work in time for the March 2009 session of the Human Rights Council. There was also the recommendation to the Human Rights Council to endorse the request to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide access of summary records to the human rights defenders, so that debates were not simply left in the dust, but put to practice.

Presentation by Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Social Forum

MOUSA BURAYZAT, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 2008 Social Forum, said that the Social Forum that was held from 1 to 3 September included many topics: human rights and extreme poverty; foreign debt, international trade policies and poverty reduction; the role and responsibility of the State, non governmental organizations and transnational corporations in poverty eradication; decent work conditions; corruption; access to affordable essential drugs and health care; issues of climate change, food security and poverty; and the last international food crisis, right to food and poverty.

At the Social Forum, the close link between poverty and human rights was underlined. Also, equality and non discrimination were critical requirements for the success of poverty reduction policies. The economic aspect of a human rights based approach was extensively debated and the suggestion that economic policies should be anchored in poverty alleviation was repeatedly made. The participants confirmed the fact that economic growth alone was not sufficient to combat poverty. Also, a human rights based approach must involve representatives of the poor. Among the many sources of poverty foreign debt was highlighted. Regarding the responsibility for combating poverty, the State was singled out as the primary responsible entity.

The list of possible remedies discussed at the Forum included economic policies at the national level, empowering the poor, education and others. Participants agreed that collaborative action among governments, businesses and other actors was useful.

In his conclusions the Chairperson-Rapporteur noted that the windfalls off globalization and global economic growth had not led to the much hoped for positive impact on goal number one of the Millennium Development Goals. The Forum had been useful to increase awareness of the issues, to deepen understanding of their implications and to ripen collective appreciation at both the causes of the problem, its human rights dimensions as well as possible remedies.

General Debate on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

JEAN -BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Human Rights Council had completed its second year of work on establishing human rights mechanisms. The reform process had supplemented and strengthened the earlier architecture, so that now, most of the mechanisms were operational. It was now the turn of States to cooperate in good faith on attaining their common goal and improving the protection of human rights on the ground in all countries. The European Union was particularly attentive to the Human Rights Council's system of Special Procedures. This system had amply proved itself to be indispensable. The European Union urged all countries to extend a standing invitation to all Human Rights Council Special Procedures. The Council should also continue to ensure that the criteria of expertise and experience were applied and the principle of geographical and gender balance were complied with in the appointment of mandate holders. The independence of Special Procedures also had to be respected in all cases.

Concerning the Advisory Committee, the European Union would carefully consider all its recommendations. They knew that the Committee had proposed studies on a wide range of topics for the activity of the Human Rights Council. The European Union trusted that the discussion on these studies would be constructive and ensure that the resulting recommendations would serve to support the Human Rights Council in its work. The confidential complaint procedure, as now reformed, should enable the Human Rights Council members to better respond to the expectations of the victims of gross violations. Concerning the Social Forum, it should, in the view of the European Union, continue to provide an appropriate forum for conducting useful discussions between States, experts, international organizations and representatives of civil society.

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Advisory Committee had made a good start. The Organization of the Islamic Conference welcomed the establishment of the two drafting groups on human rights education and training and on the right to food. The Council needed to give a clear strategic direction regarding the pending studies of the Advisory Committee's predecessor, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Regarding the Social Forum, the Organization of the Islamic Conference welcomed the decision to focus on questions relating to the eradication of poverty and human rights, the work of human rights mechanisms and the right to development in relation to poverty. The Organization of the Islamic Conference was confident that the Forum would come up with concrete proposals for the eradication of poverty.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, welcomed the convening of the first session of the Advisory Committee and said it had marked an important step in completing the Human Rights Council institution-building phase. The African Group commended the Chairperson of the Advisory Committee on ensuring the smooth conduct of the session and preventing the resort to bad practices witnessed in the latter years of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Egypt particularly welcomed the Advisory Committee's work on human rights education and the right to food and freedom from hunger.

The African Group looked forward to the consideration of the various proposals and recommendations submitted by the Advisory Committee. It expressed satisfaction that the Advisory Committee had adhered to its mandate. The African Group looked forward to the Advisory Committee's second session in January 2009 and the comprehensive report to the Council at its main session in March.

JOAO ERNESTO CHRISTOFOLO (Brazil) welcomed the first session of the Advisory Committee. This had enabled the Council to go further in the process of institutional building. In accordance with its mandate, as provided by Council resolution 5/1, the Advisory Committee had an important role to play as a think-tank in the United Nations human rights system. During its first session, the Advisory Committee had dealt with a comprehensive agenda in a diligent and extensive way. The issues submitted by the Council to the Committee were of paramount importance for the achievement of their common goal of promotion of human rights worldwide. It was important that the Advisory Committee worked in a result-oriented way.

During its first session, the Advisory Committee had recommended that the Human Rights Council and the Secretary-General should make available their good offices to protect human rights of refugees. Brazil supported the efforts to be taken in this regard. Brazil was also deeply committed to the full respect, protection and promotion of the right to food for all.

RACHITA BHANDARI (India) said that the focus of the Advisory Committee had to be on the specific tasks that were assigned to it by the Council. India was satisfied with the progress made in the implementation of some of the tasks assigned to the Committee by the Council. India noted that it was clearly stated that the Advisory Committee could not adopt resolutions or decision. However, the Advisory Committee at its first session by and large followed the same working methods as in the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The explicit provision was treated merely as a question of semantics. This needed to be rectified. Finally, regarding the question of pending studies of the Sub-Commission, this was one of the pending tasks of the institution-building process which had to be addressed at the level of the Human Rights Council.

OSAMU YAMANAKA (Japan) welcomed the active discussion that took place in the first session of the Advisory Committee on issues such as human rights education and training, the right to food and discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members. Concerning the resolution on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members, the Government of Japan together with 58 country sponsors had decided who would be responsible for it and would assist the responsible member and the Advisory Committee.

The Government of Japan strongly hoped that the Advisory Committee would play a constructive and effective role and not simply carry over the style established in the former Sub-Commission form the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights under the Commission of Human Rights. It was to be borne in mind that the Advisory Committee, being the think tank of the Human Rights Council, differed from the former Sub-Commission in terms of the mandate.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that the mandate of the Advisory Committee had been defined only after a lengthy discussion in the Council. They had collectively decided that it would act as a think-tank, composed of independent human rights personalities. The Council needed a subsidiary body which could distance itself from the political world. It should also avoid duplication with the Special Procedures mandates. The challenges in human rights were vast; resources had to be used wisely.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland), speaking on behalf of Costa Rica, Italy, Morocco and Switzerland which formed the group on education and training in human rights, said that the Advisory Committee needed to prepare a draft declaration on human rights training and education. The promotion of education and training in human rights was one of the key tasks of the Council, as defined by the General Assembly when the Council was created. The more future generations were made aware of human rights the more they would be able respect them and to call for their respect. It was already heartening to see that a number of increasing countries were starting human rights education and training initiatives.

MIRTA GRANDA AVERHOFF (Cuba) said that Cuba appreciated the importance granted by the Advisory Committee to the right to food. Cuba had taken note of the recommendations to the Council to mandate the Advisory Committee to undertake studies related to the current food crisis. Cuba also welcomed the holding of the first session of the Social Forum. Regarding eradicating poverty, the Social Forum had tackled the current food crisis, external debt and its impact on poverty, international cooperation, and the responsibility of transnational corporations. The solutions to poverty were issues that affected the whole international community. The Council should consider creating a monetary fund which would facilitate participation of non-governmental organizations from poor countries in the Social Forum.

HA WIE-YOUNG (Republic of Korea) wholeheartedly welcomed the official launch of the Advisory Committee and said that the mandate of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had already been completed and the results had to be finalized.

The Republic of Korea took note with great interest of the recommendation that the Human Rights Council and the Secretary-General should make available their good offices so as to extend the right of non-refoulement to refugees from hunger. It hoped that the Council would accord due consideration to this recommendation, since the global food crisis was likely to cause the increase in the number of refugees from hunger. There was a need for the Human Rights Council to integrate a gender perspective in its work. The Government of the Republic of Korea attached great importance to the protection of human rights of women in situations of armed conflict. The Republic of Korea hoped the Advisory Committee would accord its full attention to violence against women in armed conflicts, which was an issue that required an urgent solution in order to advance women's human rights.

RODRIGO DONOSO (Chile) said that Chile was looking forward to the results of the studies of the Advisory Committee. Chile would be monitoring with close attention the valuable work of the advisory services the Committee was providing to the Council. Concerning the right to food, Chile attached great importance to this issue. Among the consequences of the food crisis, one had to note impoverishment. Thus, Chile fully supported Advisory Committee recommendation 1/8 concerning the right to food and the right of peasants. The rural population needed the Council to pay due attention to this issue.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation was optimistic after analyzing the results of the first session of the Advisory Committee. The experience acquired by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Committee's predecessor, should not be lost but should act as a basis of the work of the Committee. Those reports that were not completed by the Sub-Commission should only be continued if the Council decided so. Russia also attached great importance to the work of the Social Forum. Russia pointed out that it was closely monitoring the work of the Advisory Committee and the Social Forum.

INDAH NURIA SAVITRI (Indonesia) said that the report submitted by the Advisory Committee showed that a very wide range of important issues had been discussed. Resolution 5/1 had not made any provisions for the status of the range of studies, which were part of the work of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and which should have been pursued by the Council. More than two years had elapsed since the demise of the Sub-Commission and Indonesia endorsed the Advisory Committee's recommendation that the follow-up should resume. The Council should re-examine the relevance of the issues and its decision could then be reflected in one or several resolutions formally mandating the Advisory Committee to resume its consideration and state the modalities of that work.

Indonesia reiterated its support to the Social Forum and said that this year's Forum had focused on the topics that could be seen as the most salient causes of poverty. The recommendations, although familiar, could not be over emphasized. Ways and means had to be found to provide key technical support and capacity building for countries and agencies in need and the United Nations had to be able to rely on the financial support it needed in order to develop and coordinate international efforts to tackle poverty.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria) said that Nigeria considered the first session of the Advisory Committee as an important step towards consolidating the institution-building process of the Human Rights Council. Nigeria also recognised that the Committee would build its work on the achievements of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Nigeria appreciated the high quality of deliberations and the manner in which the Advisory Committee had been able to conduct its first session. The Committee's work on important developmental issues, such as human rights education and the right to food were welcomed. Nigeria hoped that the Committee would continue its work as guided by the institution building text particularly with regard to the question of pending studies started by the Commission.

ARCANJO MARIA DO NASCIMENTO (Angola) encouraged the Advisory Committee to continue the work of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights regarding the promotion of human rights. Although there was a Special Rapporteur on the right to food, it was up to the Advisory Committee to carry out studies related to the causes of the world food crisis. The huge hike in food prices was related to the policies of the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme were lacking financial resources and had to reduce their food rations, for example in countries in Southern Africa. As a consequence, many internally displaced persons in camps were malnourished.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) expressed sincere appreciation to the Chairpersons of the Advisory Committee and the Social Forum and said Bangladesh was satisfied with the progress made. The Advisory Committee paid attention to issues as requested by the Human Rights Council. Bangladesh noted that some studies commissioned by the Advisory Committee were on broad issues and could not be completed in time and suggested the extension of the time limit. The Advisory Committee must still fine-tune the modalities of its work, and had already provided guidelines. Bangladesh underscored the collegiality and the reports of collective wisdom from the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and said that those had to be retained. Bangladesh hoped that the Advisory Committee would follow the good example of its predecessor body and contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights.

The Social Forum had been established in the era of globalization, the benefits of which had not been equally distributed. Bangladesh noted that the theme of the last Social Forum was pertinent and timely and that the format could be used for future sessions. Theoretical discourses must be translated into implementable strategies, as actions and not talks changed the situation of the poor.

KONUL GASIMOVA (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan believed that the first session of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee signified another important step towards completion of the Council's institutional-building process. Deliberations in the course of the first session clearly testified to the rationale behind its establishment and Azerbaijan believed that as an independent expert body, the Advisory Committee would contribute to the efficiency of the Human Rights Council. The professionalism of its members created great hope that the Advisory Committee would be implementation oriented. Azerbaijan was confident that all requests the Council had made to the Advisory Committee would be implemented. The first session had been held in a spirit of cooperation, demonstrated by the elaboration and adoption by consensus of 13 recommendations. Azerbaijan had no doubts that the Advisory Committee would be guided by an independent, objective and transparent approach which was so crucial for the effectiveness and non–selectivity of the Council.

QIAN BO (China) said that China supported the work and the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. China also congratulated the Social Forum on its first meeting. Recently the world had seen a series of crises and it was faced with many challenges. The Social Forum was an effective model of exchange on issues such as eradication of poverty, climate change and others.

ISMAIL MOHAMAD BKRI (Malaysia) said Malaysia welcomed the successful convening of the Social Forum. Malaysia was pleased with the outcome of the Forum and took note that the issues of poverty and human rights, globalization, the food crisis and good governance continued to receive wide attention at the Forum. Many interesting views were put forward. Malaysia strongly believed that economic development was crucial in ensuring the enjoyment of human rights. In this regard, the promotion of global development required a strong multilateral system. Malaysia called on States and international organizations to increase the dialogue on inclusive and equitable globalization.

JANIS MAZEIKS (Latvia), addressing the Council on behalf of Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Zambia and the Member States of the European Union, said that these countries were united in sending invitations to all Special Procedures. They believed that this constituted a clear way to show their readiness and willingness to cooperate fully with the Human Rights Council. They had also noted that unlike several past years, the number of countries that had extended standing invitations had grown during the last year. They welcomed the recent decisions of the Republic of Korea, Zambia and Australia to extend invitations to all Special Procedures. They encouraged the countries running for election to the Council to extend standing invitations as part of their overall commitment. Current members that had not done so were also invited to do the same.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the Advisory Committee was a subsidiary body with a purely advisory function. It had scrupulously worked within these limitations. Morocco was particularly happy to see that a drafting group on human rights education and training had been set up. This matter was especially important to Morocco and Switzerland. Regarding the Social Forum, Morocco subscribed to the relevance of the topics discussed such as the food crisis among others. The Forum was an excellent arena for discussion and a forum for the exchange of best practices.

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela) welcomed the work of the Advisory Committee and the Social Forum and recognised the excellent work done by the Advisory Committee during its first session in August. Venezuela was aware of the difficulties the Advisory Committee had to deal with in setting up the body, establishing the annual work plan and deciding on the working methods. The Advisory Committee had also to respond to the requests by the Human Rights Council and deal with the legacy of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Venezuela noted that the launching of the Advisory Committee created expectations in the universal human rights system. If it was to fulfil its mandate, the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had to ensure it had the facilities and resources, as well as independence in order to provide the specialized advice. Venezuela offered the commitment, political will and experience to work with the new Advisory Committee.

CLAUDIA NEURY, of International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (OIDEL), in a joint statement with several NGOs1, wanted to draw the attention of Member States to the importance of the preparation of the draft United Nations declaration on human rights education and training that the drafting group of the Advisory Committee had already set in motion. The draft declaration was expected to set out both principles and the parameters of States' responsibilities for human rights education and training, and to become part of the international human rights standards. The International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education appreciated that the drafting group had held consultations with non governmental organizations. Further, it was not desirable to hasten the process of such an important work; however, setting up a certain timeframe might be worthwhile in order to prevent unnecessary prolongation of the draft preparation.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, in a joint statement with International Educational Development and Interfaith International, said that the Human Rights Council was mandated to continue to monitor the realization of the right to self determination. The Indian Council of South America was grateful for the Advisory Committee's recommendation that the Council allow it to undertake a study on the right of peoples, including indigenous people, to self determination. The Council should continue in this direction.

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said International Educational Development followed with great interest the inaugural session of the Advisory Committee and hoped future sessions would be on the webcam. The hiatus between the last session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the first session of the Advisory Committee had led to an interruption of several important initiatives, for example the four-year work on Guidelines and Principles by the Working Group on terrorism and human rights. International Educational Development hoped this would be jump-started by the Advisory Committee.

International Educational Development welcomed the Advisory Committee's attention to the issue of self determination and said it submitted a written statement A/HRC/9/NGO/51 in this regard. The Council had some options, such as invoking the right to self determination in some situations, holding special sessions, establishing a procedure on this topic or including it as an agenda item. Further, the Human Rights Council could request the Committee to prepare an update of the two prior reports of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on this issue.

GITTE DYRHAGEN, of International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), drew the Council's attention to two recommendations that were adopted by the Advisory Committee. Recommendation 1/10, recommended that the Council authorize all reports and working papers that had not been completed and submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and that they be issued as United Nations official documents and be sent to the Council. This was crucial to ensure that work completed was not wasted. The second recommendation was 1/13, where the Advisory Committee suggested that the Council examine and eventually take the decisions it might consider fit for a possible follow-up to all studies that had been commissioned by the Sub-Commission. Members and observers were urged to take up these recommendations and consider the necessary follow-up.

IGNACIO-AURELI ARGEMI, of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, said that they were in the last months of the year 2008, the International Year of Languages, proclaimed by the United Nations. What had the Human Rights Council done in order to celebrate this? The Council could express itself in favour of a declaration to develop a legal doctrine on the right to use one's own language which every human being had. Linguistic rights had to be addressed and the Advisory Committee should be tasked with a work that could culminate in a declaration by the United Nations on linguistic rights complementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

HOANG BAO VIET ASSAAD, of International PEN, said International PEN was deeply committed to the protection of languages and diversity. The United Nations General Assembly declared 2008 as the International Year of Languages. Using one's mother language was an essential human right. Unfortunately, the right to linguistic differences was often politicised and minority languages often disappeared.

International PEN called on international bodies to protect those languages and urged the Human Rights Council to address the issue of linguistic rights as a step towards adoption of a Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights by the United Nations General Assembly. The Council should also ask the Advisory Committee to conduct a study on the issue.

NAZIMA RUNSHI, of the European Union of Public Relations, said that a lot of work had already been done by the Working Group on Minorities of the Commission on Human Rights in terms of defining and understanding minority issues. This problem had been deeply studied and there was a need to examine possible solutions to the problems involving minorities. The Forum on Minority Issues of the Human Rights Council needed to organize workshops in different regions of the world to encourage minorities and governments to work together towards a shared understanding of concerns and problems.

The other area in which the Forum on Minority Issues needed to work was to study and develop an action plan on policing in multi-ethnic societies. Over-policing could happen when greater attention was given to crimes allegedly committed by members of minority communities. Under-policing could happen when the police might be less willing to help members of a minority. The forthcoming meeting of the Forum this December needed to discuss these important issues.

P. JOHN, of the International Institute for Peace, said that the Social Forum was aimed at incorporating different views to address issues such as poverty. The impact of globalization on developing countries was of growing concern. To address these issues, States should formulate individual and collective development policies. The majority of the new States, that had gained independency only recently, were facing many challenges such as population explosion, health problems, lack of development, instability and others. The Social Forum should continue its work and collect best practices to eradicate poverty.

YURI SAITO, of the International Service for Human Rights, said that the first session of the Advisory Committee demonstrated this new mechanism's potential to act as an independent expert body but had also exposed some areas of concern. The International Service for Human Rights welcomed the Advisory Committee's openness to the participation of non governmental organizations through active solicitation of their input and direct responses to their concerns. The Service hoped the Advisory Committee would maintain and enhance the involvement of non governmental organizations in its work and supported their proposal to make the work more accessible through the use of summaries and webcasts. The Advisory Committee's sense of initiative was welcome too and the Service hoped this trend would continue beyond the inaugural session. The Council was encouraged to positively consider the recommendation made by the Advisory Committee.

On a less positive note, the International Service for Human Rights expressed its concern about the repeated efforts by some States to further narrow the Advisory Committee's already limited mandate. These States should allow it to operate as an independent expert body. As the Human Rights Council continued to improve the integration of a gender perspective into all aspects of its work, it was the imperative that this commitment was reflected in its subsidiary bodies, including the Advisory Committee. The extent to which the Advisory Committee could meaningfully contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights ultimately rested with the Council and the International Service for Human Rights hoped that the Advisory Committee would live up to the expectations and implement its mandate as a truly independent body.

A. PAFFLINS, of the World Peace Council, said that the Social Forum was a unique space for interactive dialogue between the United Nations machinery and various stakeholders. Many factors were putting countries of the world at different level of development. Although the fight against poverty remained its focal point, one could not ignore other factors which had a direct linkage to poverty. Millennium Development Goal Eight addressed the collective responsibility of States towards most vulnerable groups so that mankind proceeded towards goals of development. Such a task required the collective effort of all States and stakeholders. The Social Forum was an excellent platform to realize such a goal.

STEFANO KELLER, of the Universal Esperanto Association, said that they were particularly attached to language-related rights. These rights should be recognized as human rights and should be defended. The Association supported the suggestion made earlier for the Advisory Committee to study the right to language. It proposed translating into Esperanto and a number of local languages the final document and others of the Social Forum to enable its distribution in regions where the official languages of the United Nations were not spoken.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of the Association of World Citizens, said that while the Social Forum identified and focused on critical underlying determinants of health and health equity, health as a global challenge had been discussed in terms of access to affordable essential drugs and health care. During the interactive events speakers had presented evidence of the neglected health rights of vulnerable groups and underlined the urgency to move towards a systems approach that should also address determinants of increasing health inequalities. The 1978 Alma Declaration on Primary Health Care had underlined the linkages between health and health equity and the social and physical environment, the right to participate and the relevance of cross-sectoral action. While commodification of health care over the past decade had induced a narrow and decontextualised approach to health, many examples existed where health workers, civil society organizations and institutions had resisted and developed comprehensive approaches in line with the principles of health for all. The health rights of migrants in and at the borders of Europe were neglected.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that one year after the Human Rights Council had adopted the institution-building package, 32 States had undergone the Universal Periodic Review. These had included seven European Union Member States. The European Union knew that no situation was perfect and every State had to give itself the means to progress towards greater respect for human rights. The Universal Periodic Review was an essential innovation. Thanks to the efforts of all involved, it had also been possible to provide for working methods which complied with the guiding principles set out in the institution-building package: universality, transparency, objectivity and non-selectiveness in the consideration of human rights matters.

While it was still too soon to assess the impact of the Universal Periodic Review on the ground, a number of lessons could already be drawn from the first sessions. During the interactive dialogues, despite the occasional temptation to indulge in overly accommodating rhetoric, most speakers had drawn on reliable information to put forward apt questions and recommendations. In this context the European Union was convinced that by improving the concrete and measurable character of recommendations formulated during the session of the Working Group, they would strengthen the cooperative approach so that the State under review could focus in concrete goals.

Most States under review had given a constructive response to the recommendations issued to them, and it was satisfying to note that their replies and voluntary commitments had been included in the outcome reports. Some States had even extensively involved civil society. The European Union also welcomed the fact that non governmental organizations had been given a proper share of the hour allocated for consideration of each outcome report. The Universal Periodic Review was still a work under process. It was encouraging to note that the recommendations had, in the main, been well received by the reviewed States. Care had to be taken to ensure the effective implementation of these recommendations and of the voluntary commitments by States. The Council should thus examine all means of ensuring this follow-up.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group did not oppose having a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review with the understanding that it would not be used as a follow up to the Universal Periodic Review cycles which the Council had conducted so far. On the issue of the documentation of the Universal Periodic Review, the Group would like to once again welcome the note entitled “note of the facilitator concerning the issue of the report of the eighth session of the Human Rights Council”. The African Group would also like to indicate the following: the African Group supported the proposal to include the summary of the views expressed and general comments on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review as an integral section of the report. The African Group supported putting a specific page limit to the overall documentation of the process. Also, statements or parts of statements ruled out of order under the Universal Periodic Review discussion should be dealt with according to the rules of procedure in order not to reward those who chose to ignore the rules of procedure of the Council. Final agreement on the mentioned elements should be reproduced in a draft decision and should be adopted by the Council.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference upheld the principles of universal treatment and thus had never objected to the inclusion of the Universal Periodic Review in the agenda of the Council. The Organization of the Islamic Conference noted the pertinent remarks of the President about the debate on the Universal Periodic Review and hoped it would not be politicised. The institution-building text was clear on the process of the Universal Periodic Review and no further layers of procedures were necessary. The Organization of the Islamic Conference commended the efforts put in preparation of the non-paper and the Presidential Statement and hoped it would help in reaching an agreement.

Right of Reply

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply, said that the representative of Morocco had reproached the representative of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, which had criticised the human rights violations in Western Sahara, for not having mentioned the situation in Tindouf. As Tindouf was in Algeria, Algeria wished to exercise its right of reply in this regard. United Nations agencies present in Tindouf had recently underlined the good collaboration with Algeria and the Saharawis. They had not reported any human rights violations in the camps. The best way to know where the human rights violations were taking place would be to have the High Commissioner publish her report on her Office's 2006 mission to Western Sahara and Tindouf, which was not published in the light of covert political pressure. This report noted that human rights violations had taken place in the Western Sahara and alone of other reports, it was the only one that was not published. The non governmental organization was therefore right to invoke the independence and the impartiality of the High Commissioner for the report to be reported and adopted so as to put an end to this anomaly. What was at stake was the obligation to protect and the need to be able to help Saharawi human rights defenders.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, reiterated that Japan remained committed to pursuing its basic policy to normalize its relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in line with the Pyongyang Declaration. Japan did not want to restate its view point on this and hoped that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would make an effort to improve the human rights situation there.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), in a second right of reply, said that the representative of Algeria felt he had to react and exercise his right to reply to a question which was not really targeting Algeria. Morocco spoke of Tindouf camp and not of Algeria. He hoped this awareness might lead to an increasing awareness on the part of Algeria so that they could put an end to the suffering of the people who were in the camp in Tindouf. Algeria was responsible for the people in its territory and bound to protect them against all and every violation of human rights. Algeria had long refused to conduct a census of this population. The 1830 resolution called on all sides to be realistic and to show good faith. Morocco hoped that Algeria would join Morocco's efforts to find a solution.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), in a second right of reply, said that the problem had to do with Morocco and the Sahrawis and the Polissario and it was really up to them to find a solution. Any solution between Morocco and the Polissario would be accepted by Algeria, but it was something they had to settle themselves. Algeria had already said this in its first statement and would not repeat it. The right to self determination was a universal right; it could not be subject to polemics. The manoeuvres by the Moroccan delegation would not change the reality of things and the right to self determination of these people who had been victims. Algeria did not want to see the human rights violations in the Western Sahara. It was very important to prepare to move away from the shade into the light.

1Joint statement on behalf of: International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (OIDEL); Soka Gakkai International; International Alliance of Women; International Federation of Social Workers; Interfaith International; World Student Christian Federation; International Council of Women; International Federation of University Women; International Catholic Child Bureau; Association Points-Coeur; International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD); Institute for Planetary Synthesis; and Pax Romana.


For use of the information media; not an official record



HRC08097E