HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS FIFTEEN RESOLUTIONS AND TWO DECISIONS

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted 15 resolutions and two decisions on a wide variety of subjects, including on the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental working group to review the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council; independence and impartiality of the judiciary; human rights education; protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflict; the human rights of migrants; elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy; access to safe drinking water and sanitation; international solidarity; the right to food; transitional justice; the right to truth; indigenous people; regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights; and on the situation of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’état on 28 June 2009.

Under its agenda item on organizational and procedural matters, the Council decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group with the mandate to review the work and functioning of the Council and requested the Secretary-General to present a report to the Council at its fifteenth session on how to improve conference and secretariat services for the Council.

Under its agenda item on the annual report of the High Commissioner, the Council urged Governments to prevent and refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with the United Nations.

Under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, the Council requested the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to elaborate safeguards to ensure and strengthen the independence of lawyers; decided to focus the second phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education on human rights education for higher education and on human rights training programmes for teachers and educators, civil servants, law enforcement officials and military personnel; invited the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene a second expert consultation on the issue of protecting the human rights of civilians in armed conflict; called upon States to promote and protect effectively the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, especially those of children; and requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to collect the views of relevant actors on the Advisory Committee’s draft set of principles and guidelines and the rights of people affected by leprosy and their family.

Also under this agenda item, the Council called upon States to create an enabling environment to address the issue of lack of sanitation at all levels; expressed its determination to contribute to the solution of current world problems through increased international cooperation and called upon the international community to promote international solidarity and cooperation; called upon States and other relevant stakeholders to take all necessary measures to ensure the realization of the right to food; stressed the need to develop national prosecutorial capacities that were based on a clear commitment to combat impunity; requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report on programmes and other measures for the protection of witnesses implemented within the framework of criminal procedures related to gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law; requested the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to carry out a study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making; and requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold a workshop on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights on a regular basis.

Under its agenda item on human rights situations that require its attention the Council strongly condemned the human rights violations occurring as a consequence of the coup d’état of 28 June 2009 in Honduras and called for the immediate end to all human rights violations.

Under its agenda item on human rights bodies and mechanisms, the Council adopted a decision on missing persons and requested the Advisory Committee to submit its study on the matter to the Council at its fourteenth session; and a decision on the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training in which it decided to hold a high-level discussion on the draft declaration during its thirteenth session.

Draft resolutions on Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar and on freedom of opinion and expression were introduced, but the Council postponed taking action on them to Friday.

Speaking in introduction of resolutions were the Russian Federation, Hungary, Costa Rica, Egypt, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Spain, Cuba, Switzerland, Argentina, Guatemala, Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin America and Caribbean Countries, Azerbaijan, Morocco on behalf of Morocco, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Italy, Slovenia, the Philippines and Senegal, Belgium and Sweden on behalf of the European Union.

Speaking in general comment were France on behalf of the European Union, Brazil, Nicaragua and Nigeria.

Speaking in explanations of the vote before the vote were France on behalf of the European Union, the United States and India.

The Council will meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 2 October 2009, to continue to take action on draft decisions and resolutions before concluding its twelfth regular session.


Action on Resolution Under Agenda Item on Organizational and Procedural Matters

In a resolution on Open-ended intergovernmental working group on the review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/12/L.28), adopted without a vote as orally revised , the Council decides to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group with the mandate to review the work and functioning of the Council; also decides that the working group shall hold two sessions for five working days each, in Geneva, after its fourteenth session; requests the President of the Council to chair the working group; also requests the President to undertake transparent and all-inclusive consultations prior to working group sessions on the modalities of the review, and keep the Council informed thereof; requests the Secretary-General to present a report to the Council at its fifteenth session on how to improve conference and secretariat services for the Council; and requests the working group to report to the Council at its seventeenth session on the progress achieved in the implementation of the present resolution.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation), introducing draft resolution L.28, said after the five first years of its work, the Council must review its activities, and submit a corresponding report to the General Assembly for consideration. The Council had already gone half-way through this five-year cycle, and this draft, in terms of the schedule for review of the issues, was timely. It was important to have a single understanding for the modalities of the review, what its scope and rules would be. The Council needed to have full information, including the difficulties encountered by it, the Secretariat and the Conference Services. There were some minor changes to the text.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), in a general comment, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that generally speaking, the European Union could go along with text of resolution L. 28. The European Union would however like to state that great importance needed to be attached to transparency, which would be essential to the success of this process. The European Union did agree to go along with the consensus, but said that the Working Group should not start its work before the fifteenth session, that was, at the earliest in the fall of 2010.


Action on Resolution Under Agenda Item on Annual Report of the High Commissioner

In a resolution on Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and
mechanisms in the field of human rights (A/HRC/12/L.8), adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council urges Governments to prevent and refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who: seek to cooperate or have cooperated with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights, or who have provided testimony or information to them; avail or have availed themselves of procedures established under the auspices of the United Nations for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and all those who have provided legal or other assistance to them for this purpose; submit or have submitted communications under procedures established by human rights instruments, and all those who have provided legal or other assistance to them for this purpose; and those who are relatives of victims of human rights violations or of those who have provided legal or other assistance to victims. The Council further condemns all acts of intimidation or reprisal by Governments and non-State actors against individuals and groups who seek to cooperate or have cooperated with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights and calls upon States to ensure adequate protection from intimidation or reprisals for such individuals and reaffirms the duty of all States to end impunity for such actions by bringing the perpetrators, including accomplices, to justice in accordance with international standards and by providing an effective remedy for their victims.

LEVENTE SZEKELY (Hungary), introducing draft resolution L.8, said that the resolution addressed one of the most important issues of the Council's general endeavour to promote human rights, namely their responsibility to protect people against any form of reprisal or intimidation due to their cooperation with the United Nations human rights system. This resolution had been first submitted in 1990 to the Commission on Human Rights and had always enjoyed general political consensus. They reintroduced this text to the Human Rights Council with the aim to achieve the same kind of broad support for this noble cause. The text emphasized the importance of prevention and praised efforts by States to investigate such cases. The importance of this resolution was all the more underscored by the explicit and direct death threats of the President of Gambia who in a televised speech on 21 September tried to intimidate people cooperating with human rights defenders.

Action on Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/12/L.7) on independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to elaborate safeguards to ensure and strengthen the independence of lawyers, including public defenders where appropriate, as a guarantee in the protection of human rights and the rule of law; encourages States to promote diversity in the composition of the members of the judiciary and to ensure that the requirements for joining the judiciary and the selection process thereof are non-discriminatory; and further calls on all Governments to respect and uphold the independence of judges and lawyers and urges all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of her tasks.

ZOLTAN BANYASZ (Hungary), introducing draft resolution L.7, said that Hungary had sponsored resolutions on the independence and impartiality of judges for years in the Commission on Human Rights. In keeping with that tradition, Hungary had introduced this resolution on the same subject, building on previous achievements and wishing to make a modest but important contribution towards safeguarding the independence of judges and lawyers. The text of the draft was based largely on 8/6 and 33/2005. The new paragraphs referred to the activities of the Special Rapporteur, encouraging her to continue the valuable work of her predecessor, and requesting the elaboration of safeguards as a guarantee to protection of human rights and the rule of law. It also encouraged States to promote diversity in the composition of the members of the judiciary. The draft had not been revised since tabling.

In a resolution on World Programme for Human Rights Education (A/HRC/12/L.9), adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Human Rights Council decides to focus the second phase of the World Programme on human rights education for higher education and on human rights training programmes for teachers and educators, civil servants, law enforcement officials and military personnel at all levels; encourages States that have not yet taken steps to incorporate human rights education in the primary and secondary school system to do so, in accordance with the Plan of Action of the first phase of the World Programme; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare, within existing resources, a plan of action for the second phase of the World Programme and to submit it for consideration to the Council at its fifteenth session; recommends that the Secretary-General ensure that an adequate component of United Nations assistance be available to support human rights education; requests the Coordinating Committee to submit a final evaluation report of the implementation of the first phase of the World Programme to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session; and decides to consider this issue at its fifteenth session.

ALEXANDRA SEGURA HERNANDEZ (Costa Rica), introducing resolution L. 9, said that L. 9 was an initiative with which everybody in the Council was familiar because it had been reviewed several times since the year 2004. Costa Rica would also like to underscore the fact that this was an initiative of which it was very proud as it had been in practice all around the world. Costa Rica had submitted this resolution in order to pave the way for the second phase in 2010. Costa Rica would also like to point out that the questionnaires had been returned by numerous States and non-governmental organizations. Costa Rica then made several oral amendments.

In a resolution on Protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflict (A/HRC/12/L.15), adopted without a vote, the Human Rights Council invites the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene a second expert consultation on the issue of protecting the human rights of civilians in armed conflict, with a view to enabling the completion of the consultations on this issue, and requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a report on the outcome of the consultation, in the form of a summary of discussions, prior to its fourteenth session; and decides to continue the consideration of this question at its fourteenth session in conformity with the provisions of resolution 9/9.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), introducing draft resolution L.15, said that the human rights situation of civilians in armed conflict continued to remain of concern. The protection provided by human rights law should continue in times of conflicts. The Human Rights Council should monitor the human rights situations in armed conflicts. The initiative was thematic in nature. The current text requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report on the outcome of the consultations on this issue in the form of a summary discussion. Egypt thanked all delegations for the positive spirit during the informal consultations.

In a resolution on Human rights of migrants: migration and the human rights of the child (A/HRC/12/L.16), adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council calls upon States to promote and protect effectively the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, especially those of children, regardless of their status, in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international instruments to which they are party, and therefore: calls upon States to establish or strengthen policies and programmes aimed at addressing the situation of children in the context of migration that have a human rights-based approach and are based on general principles, such as the best interests of the child, non-discrimination, participation and survival and development; also calls upon States of origin to take appropriate measures to promote and protect effectively the rights of children who are left behind in their country of origin by migrating family members; further calls upon States to protect the human rights of children in the context of migration, and therefore: calls upon States parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the supplementing protocols thereto, namely, the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, to implement them fully, and calls upon States that have not yet ratified or acceded to them to consider doing so as a matter of priority; requests all States to take concrete measures to prevent the violation of the human rights of migrant children while in transit, and to train public officials to detect and treat them respectfully, in a sensitive and age-appropriate manner and in accordance with their international obligations; calls upon States to ensure that migrant children, especially those who are unaccompanied and those who are victims of violence, exploitation, persecution and conflict, receive special protection and assistance, in accordance with their international obligations; calls upon States of destination to protect effectively the human rights of children in the context of migration, without discrimination of any kind; and also requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a study on challenges and best practices in the implementation of the international framework for the protection of the rights of the child in the context of migration, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including States, regional organizations, civil society organizations and national human rights institutions, and requests that the study be available on the website of the Office prior to the fifteenth session of the Council, and to disseminate it to all relevant international forums.

JUAN JOSE IGNACIO GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico), introducing draft resolution L. 16, said that it was an honor for Mexico to present this resolution on behalf of all co-sponsors. This draft followed suit the resolution 9/5 of the Human Rights Council, and also followed the trend of focusing on a specific aspect of an all-embracing theme. Mexico would like to promote that States could give high priority to the rights of migrant children. The draft looked at this phenomenon and, among others, dealt with the need to avoid the detention of children due to the fact that they were migrants. Mexico also called on the High Commissioner for Human Rights to carry out a study on the challenges and best practices within this issue. Mexico then made oral changes.

In a resolution on Elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members (A/HRC/12/L.17) adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to collect the views of relevant actors, including Governments, observers of the United Nations, relevant United Nations bodies, specialized agencies and programmes, non-governmental organizations, scientists, medical experts as well as representatives of persons affected by leprosy, and their family members, on the draft set of principles and guidelines, and to make those views available to the Advisory Committee; requests the Advisory Committee to finalize the draft set of principles and guidelines taking into full consideration the views of relevant actors referred to in paragraph 2 above, for submission to the Council by its fifteenth session.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan), introducing draft resolution L.17, said that the resolution was a follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution 8/13, which had requested the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to draft guidelines on the human rights of leprosy-affected people. Japan expressed its appreciation to the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee for the draft set of principles and guidelines it had submitted to the Council. Although medical treatments had rendered leprosy curable, leprosy-affected people and their families continued to be discriminated against. He then presented a number of oral revisions to the text.

In a resolution on Human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation (A/HRC/12/L.19), adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council calls upon States, among other things: to create an enabling environment to address the issue of lack of sanitation at all levels, including, where appropriate, by budgeting, legislation, the establishment of regulatory, monitoring and accountability frameworks and mechanisms, the assignment of clear institutional responsibilities and the appropriate inclusion of sanitation in national poverty reduction strategies and development plans; to collect, at the appropriate level, current, accurate and detailed information about sanitation coverage in the country and the characteristics of unserved and underserved households, and to make this information available to all stakeholders; to develop, where appropriate, national and/or local plans of action, in cooperation with other stakeholders, in order to address the lack of access to sanitation in a comprehensive way, giving due consideration to wastewater management, including treatment and reuse; to ensure and promote access to information for, and the full, free, and meaningful participation of, local communities in the design, implementation and monitoring of such plans of action; to adopt a gender-sensitive approach to all relevant policymaking in the light of the special sanitation needs of women and girls; urges development partners to adopt a human rights-based approach when designing relevant development programmes in support of national initiatives and plans of action; and requests the independent expert to continue to report on an annual basis to the Council and to submit an annual report to the General Assembly;

REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany), introducing draft resolution L.19, said the lack of access to basic sanitation was a fact in the daily life of more than 2.4 billion people all around the world: this was unacceptable, and needed to be addressed. When the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights obligations with regard to access to safe drinking water and sanitation was established, one of the tasks of the Independent Expert was to clarify the content of these obligations. The report presented during this session was a first step to close this gap, and the draft resolution reflected the findings of the report. It called upon States to undertake measures to create an enabling environment to address the issue of lack of sanitation, and recognised the contribution of the private sector in this area. It stressed the important role of the international community when supporting States in their efforts to better the lives of millions and give them back their dignity.

PABLO GOMEZ DE OLEA BUSTINZA (Spain), also introducing the resolution, said there was concern for the consequences arising from the lack of sanitation in the world. The Millennium Development Goal to cut the number of people who didn't have access to water by 2015 was the one that the world was furthest from reaching. The lack of access to sanitation was a critical obstacle when attending school. Efforts had been made to solve the problem, but not enough had been done. Access to water improved peoples' standard of living. The resolution contained the conclusions of the report of the Independent Expert. Spain then introduced oral amendments to the text.

ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil), in a general comment, and also speaking on behalf of Bolivia, said that Brazil and Bolivia welcomed this initiative since access to safe water was an important corollary to human rights. Brazil and Bolivia also appreciated the efforts deployed by Spain and Germany, but regretted that the language used failed to account for the role of the private sector in this regard. In an effort to join the consensus, Brazil said that Brazil and Bolivia were of the view that these remarks were implicit in the text.

In a resolution on Human rights and international solidarity (A/HRC/12/L.20), adopted after a vote of 33 in favour, 14 against and no abstentions, the Council expresses its determination to contribute to the solution of current world problems through increased international cooperation, to create conditions that will ensure that the needs and interests of future generations are not jeopardized by the burden of the past, and to hand over a better world to future generations; urges the international community to consider urgently concrete measures to promote and consolidate international assistance to developing countries in their development endeavours and for the promotion of conditions conducive to the full realization of all human rights; calls upon the international community to promote international solidarity and cooperation as an important tool to help to overcome the negative effects of the current economic, financial and climate crisis, particularly in developing countries; requests the independent expert to continue his work in the preparation of a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity, and in further developing guidelines, standards, norms and principles with a view to promoting and protecting this right; also requests the independent expert to take into account the outcomes of all major United Nations and other global summits and ministerial meetings in the economic, social and climate fields and to seek views and contributions from Governments, United Nations agencies, other relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations in the discharge of his mandate; requests the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to prepare inputs to contribute to the elaboration of the draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity, and to the further development of guidelines, standards, norms and principles with a view to promoting and protecting this right; and requests the independent expert to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Council at its fifteenth session.

The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (33): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (14): Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America.

Abstentions (0):


MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA CASEIRO (Cuba), introducing draft resolution L.20, said that the draft resolution they were submitting today had been adopted year after year thanks to the overwhelming support of the majority of the Human Rights Council's members. The theme looked at in this resolution was especially important nowadays, especially for those countries that were impacted by an unjust international order. This often impacted the will of countries to improve the living conditions of their citizens. The text was very similar to that which had been approved last year, plus a paragraph taking into account the current global financial crisis.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union attached great importance to the concept of international solidarity, as recognised in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed in the Millennium and 2005 Declarations, which was at the heart of the foreign activities of the European Union, in solidarity with those deprived from fundamental freedoms and suffering from extreme poverty. The European Union was attached to the overarching morality of international solidarity. The European Union would increase its Overall Development Aid over the next few years. The aim of its solidarity was to eradicate poverty and improve sustainable development. However, it was up to the State to assume the primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights and to protect the rights of those under its jurisdiction, regardless of the scope of international assistance. Thus the European Union could not go along with the scope of the draft which said that human rights depended on international solidarity. In order to be able to talk about human rights, it should be determined, in a legally-binding form, what the content of the right may be, including the rights of the beneficiaries and the legal responsibilities of institutions. In formalising this concept, human rights language was being misused, turned to rhetoric, in a way that could be dangerous both for human rights and the principles involved. For these reasons, the European Union was unable to support the draft resolution on human rights and international solidarity, and therefore the European Union called for a vote on the text and would vote against.

In a resolution on Follow-up to the seventh special session of the Human Rights Council on the negative impact of the worsening of the world food crisis on the realization of the right to food for all (A/HRC/12/L.21), adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon States, individually and through international cooperation and assistance, relevant multilateral institutions and other relevant stakeholders, to take all necessary measures to ensure the realization of the right to food as an essential human rights objective, and to consider reviewing any policy or measure that could have a negative impact on the realization of the right to food; requests the Special Rapporteur to continue to promote the right to food as outlined in his mandate and, as part of it, to continue to follow up to the world food crisis through a continued dialogue with stakeholders at all levels, including with all relevant international organizations and agencies of the United Nations system, in order to contribute to identifying means to implement the right to food; and also requests the Special Rapporteur, within the framework of his mandate, to inform the Council on the crisis, on the impact of the crisis on the realization of the right to food and on progress made and obstacles encountered in relation with the implementation of measures to respond to the world food crisis and of evolving best practices in this regard.

RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba), introducing draft resolution L. 21, said that this draft resolution was the result of very broad consultations, and Cuba wished to thank all delegations that had been committed in a direct way to the negotiation process. Cuba called on the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to continue monitoring the unfolding food crisis, and to promote the right to food, as well as to keep the Human Rights Council informed so that it could take the necessary measures from the standpoint of human rights. The combined effect of the world food crisis and the energy crisis had worsened poverty and underdevelopment – commitment to this draft resolution was a commitment to those who were suffering from these crises, particularly in developing countries.

DOUGLAS M. GRIFFITHS (United States), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States had made a significant step in joining the consensus on this resolution. The United States was dedicated to providing food security throughout the world and to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The world food situation was a problem of profound significance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights set forth a standard of living, which included the opportunity to secure food without discrimination. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provided for the right to be free from hunger. Access to food should be non-discriminatory. Their goal was to make sure that food was available to people everywhere.

In a resolution on Human rights and transitional justice (A/HRC/12/L.26/Rev.1), adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council stresses the need within a sustainable transitional justice strategy to develop national prosecutorial capacities that are based on a clear commitment to combat impunity, to take into account the victim's perspective and to ensure compliance with human rights obligations with regard to the holding of fair trials; emphasizes that a human rights approach should be incorporated into vetting processes that are part of institutional reform aiming at preventing the recurrence of human rights violations; underlines the importance of giving vulnerable groups, including those marginalized for political, socio-economic or other reasons, a voice in these processes and to ensure that discrimination, the root causes of conflict and violations of all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, are addressed; calls upon States to assist the United Nations in its ongoing work on the relevant recommendations of the report of the Secretary-General on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies and the one entitled “Uniting our strengths: Enhancing United Nations support for the rule of law”; calls upon the international community and regional organizations to assist countries, who so consent, in the context of transitional justice, to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights and to incorporate best practices into the development and implementation of transitional justice mechanisms; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to enhance its leading role within the United Nations; also requests the Office of the High Commissioner to submit to the Council, at its eighteenth session, a report containing an update of the activities undertaken by the Office in the context of transitional justice, including by the human rights components of peace missions, as well as an analysis of the relationship between disarmament, demobilization and reintegration and transitional justice, in consultation with the United Nations Development Programme, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and other relevant parts of the United Nations system, civil society, States and other stakeholders; and decides to continue its consideration of this matter at its eighteenth session or at the corresponding session in conformity with its annual programme of work.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland), introducing draft resolution L.26/Rev. 1, said the text was based on last year's resolution on the same subject but went into greater depth on some points, such as truth-seeking processes and institutions. It went into the need to identify a strategy for transitional justice in order to enhance stability and broad membership of this process. It encouraged States to prosecute those culpable of grave violations of international law and to combat impunity. The resolution also welcomed that a growing number of peace agreements contained provisions on transitional justice and truth-seeking initiatives for legal proceedings, reparations and institutional reform, and noted that there were fewer general amnesties in peace agreements. Peace negotiators should be able to have recourse to this in the United Nations system. The High Commissioner should submit a report showing the relationship between disarmament, reintegration and demobilisation and peace, analysing this relationship. The text was the result of keen negotiation, aimed at reaching common ground.

DOUGLAS M. GRIFFITHS (United States), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States was pleased to join the consensus. The United States strongly supported transitional justice initiatives and was among the largest donors and supporters of post-conflict initiatives in the world; transitional justice inevitably incorporated institutional reforms.

In a resolution on the Right to the truth (A/HRC/12/L.27), adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report, to be presented to the Council at its fifteenth session, on the basis of information, including from States, on programmes and other measures for the protection of witnesses implemented within the framework of criminal procedures related to gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, with a view to determine the need to develop common standards and promote best practices that would serve as guidelines to States in protecting witnesses and others concerned with providing cooperation in trials for gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law; invites the Office of the High Commissioner to convene, within existing resources, a seminar, taking into account different experiences on the importance of the creation, organization and management of public systems of archives as a means to guarantee the right to the truth, with a view to study the need for guidelines on this issue, and also requests the Office to report on the outcome of the consultation, in the form of a summary of discussions on the above-mentioned issue, to the Council at its seventeenth session; invites Special Rapporteurs and other mechanisms of the Council, in the framework of their mandates, to take into account, as appropriate, the issue of the right to the truth; and decides to consider this matter at its fifteenth session under the same agenda item, or at the corresponding session in conformity with its annual programme of work.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina), introducing draft resolution L.27, said that the initiative looked at the right to truth. The text sought to instil a very broad scope to the right to truth in terms of grievous violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The text focused on a number of important aspects for the implementation of the right to truth, such as the preservation of archives and the protection of witnesses. The draft also called for the holding of a seminar on the preservation of archives. This initiative was very important for several countries in their region, but also in other parts of the world. They hoped that this initiative would have a positive impact on the development of the protection of human rights.

In a resolution on Human rights and indigenous peoples (A/HRC/12/L.33), adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people to report on the implementation of his mandate to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session; requests the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in accordance with its mandate, to carry out a study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making, and requests it to present a progress report to the Council at its fifteenth session, and a final study to the eighteenth session; decides that the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the High Commissioner should be considered by the Council during its annual September session and that the Expert Mechanism should hold its future annual sessions well in advance of that session, if possible in June; also decides to introduce staggered terms for the membership of the Expert Mechanism, considering the need to secure continuity in its functioning; and requests the Special Rapporteur, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism to continue to carry out their tasks in a coordinated manner.

STEPHANIE HOCHSTETTER SKINNER-KLEE (Guatemala), introducing draft resolution L.33, said the resolution was very brief and aimed to set forth an institutional framework, bringing together in one document all the aspects related to indigenous peoples. The High Commissioner should make a yearly report on the situation of human rights for indigenous peoples. States should take note of the reports of the Expert Mechanism when drafting plans and policies, and should integrate indigenous peoples in the decision-making process. In order to organise the treatment of the question of indigenous peoples here in the Council, looking at a situation of the fundamental deprivation of human rights, the Expert Mechanism should have yearly meetings in order to process all documents. Decisions should be made to include mandates for the membership of the Expert Mechanism. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should carry out a report on the simplification of the Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples. The Special Rapporteur, the Expert Mechanism and the Permanent Forum should continue to carry out their tasks in a coordinated manner.

In a resolution on Regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/HRC/12/L.2/Rev.1), adopted without a vote, the Council requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold a workshop on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights on a regular basis and to convene the next one in the first semester of 2010, within existing resources, to allow further sharing of information and concrete proposals on ways and means to strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional arrangements in the field of human rights and the identification of strategies to overcome obstacles to the promotion and protection of human rights at the regional and international levels, with the participation of representatives of the relevant regional and sub-regional arrangements from different regions, experts and interested States Members of the United Nations, observers, national human rights institutions and representatives of non-governmental organizations; and also requests the High Commissioner to present to the Council, at its fifteenth session, a report on the discussions held at the workshop and on the progress towards the implementation of the present resolution.

HUGO BRAUWERS (Belgium), introducing draft resolution L2/Rev. 1, said Belgium had traditionally taken the initiative on regional arrangements, both within the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. The Resolution 6/20 of the Human Rights Council of 2007 should be understood in this context, even if it envisaged the problem from a more operational standpoint. A transitional approach was a new aspect to the issue. In substance, the draft resolution aimed at putting the recommendations made in the Workshop on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights into operation. The High Commissioner was called on to put into place the recommendations called for by the Workshop. The resolution was also designed to stress the progress made by Governments around the world to set up regional and sub-regional arrangements for the protection and promotion of human rights.

Consideration of draft resolution L.14/Rev.1 on freedom of opinion and expression was postponed to Friday, 2 October.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), introducing draft resolution L.14/Rev.1 said the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a closely held and cherished right for every individual and community alike, and was an essential foundation of any democratic society. Through education, imparting and exchanging of ideas and information, creation and innovation, the freedom of expression was indispensable for the self-development of the individual, the enjoyment of other fundamental rights, progress of societies, and indeed humanity as a whole. The joint initiative of today was, in itself, a vivid illustration and practical translation of dialogue among civilisations. It was because of the immense potential that freedom of expression embodied, that, as attested to in past and recent history, it had been sometimes misused to proliferate negative racial and religious stereotyping and incitement to racial and religious hatred. These scourges had taken new dimensions in the last few years, and every State must condemn and resolve to combat them in accordance with the obligations stipulated in human rights law. Using freedom of expression as a means to promote and fuel racism and xenophobia was incompatible with the true nature of this very right, and with democracy itself. The present text emphasised the aforementioned elements, responsibilities and obligations in unambiguous terms.

DOUGLAS M. GRIFFITHS (United States), also introducing draft resolution L. 14/Rev.1, said that the United States was very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. The United States firmly believed in free speech and, building on the commitment President Obama had made in Cairo, was ready to help bridging the unhelpful divide regarding freedom of opinion and expression. The United States also wished to thank Egypt and the other delegations for their commitment, as well as others who had stood with them in their efforts to make this a key value. The United States then made oral amendments to the text.

Action on Resolution Under the Agenda Item on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council's Attention

In a resolution on the Situation of human rights in Honduras since the coup d'état on 28 June 2009 (A/HRC/12/L.31) adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council strongly condemns the human rights violations occurring as a consequence of the coup d'état of 28 June 2009, and in particular following the return of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales on 21 September 2009; calls for the immediate end to all human rights violations in Honduras and for the unconditional respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the restoration of democracy and the rule of law; calls on all actors and institutions to refrain from violence and to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms; expresses its support for regional and sub-regional efforts made to restore the democratic and constitutional order and the rule of law in Honduras; and requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a comprehensive report on the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup d'état, and to submit a preliminary report to the General Assembly at the main part of its sixty-fourth session and to the Council at its thirteenth session.

ANGELINO GARZON (Columbia), introducing draft resolution L. 31, and speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries GRULAC, said that they took into account the serious human rights violations that had occurred in Honduras after the 2009 coup d'Etat. They also reaffirmed resolution 60/1 and expressed their deep concern at the human rights violations which were caused by the overthrow of the Government of Honduras. GRULAC believed in the respect of human rights for all, and called for the unconditional respect of human rights in Honduras. GRULAC further demanded the immediate end of any type of violence that could lead to the further abuse of human rights. GRULAC further expressed solidarity with the Mission of Brazil and condemned the acts of intimidation that had been made against its embassy. Further, they demanded the respect for the integrity of President Zelaya and the democratic and constitutional order of Honduras. The present draft resolution was the result of broad consultations, including with the constitutional Government of Honduras. GRULAC urged the members of the Council to ensure that the draft resolution was adopted by consensus, and then amended the wording of draft resolution L. 31.

CARLOS ROBELO RAFFONE (Nicaragua), in a general comment, said that they wanted to add their voice to Colombia. This resolution had the consensus of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries. He stressed the importance it had for Nicaragua for the Council to adopt a resolution on a country of their region. Nicaragua condemned the overthrow of the Government in Honduras and expressed its unlimited support to President Zelaya. Nicaragua called upon the Council to approve by consensus this draft resolution.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said in keeping with the General Assembly resolution that condemned the recent events in Honduras and condemned the situation in the country, India supported the resolution, which focused on the human rights violations occurring following the coup d'état, but had serious reservations at the manner in which the rules of procedure of the Human Rights Council were violated to deny the current representative of Honduras participation in the Council. The Council was incumbent to grant the delegation of Honduras participation in the Council, pending the decision of the Fifth Committee, and was erroneous in barring them from the meeting. India joined consensus on the understanding that such denial of participation did not constitute a precedent.

Consideration of the draft resolution on Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar (A/HRC/12/L.32) was postponed to Friday, 2 October.

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the draft resolution on Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar was prepared in an inclusive process where the country concerned was informed, as well as its closest neighbours. This resolution had been tabled as a reaction to the sentencing and subsequent detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The European Union asked for her immediate release, as well as that of other political prisoners of Myanmar, in order for them to be able to participate in the 2010 elections. In order to ensure inclusive, transparent and democratic elections, the resolution called for the release of all political prisoners of Myanmar. It also called for the Government of Myanmar to engage in a genuine process of open dialogue and national reconciliation with representatives of all political parties and ethnic groups. The European Union hoped for a consensual adoption in order for the Human Rights Council to speak with one voice in this important issue.
Action on Decisions Under Agenda Item on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

In a decision on Missing Persons (A/HRC/12/L.1), adopted without a vote, the Human Rights Council takes note of recommendation 3/2 of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the progress of its work with regard to the study on the best practices in the matter of missing persons, contained in the report of the Advisory Committee on its third session (A/HRC/AC/3/2); and requests the Advisory Committee to submit the study to the Council at its fourteenth session.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), introducing draft resolution L. 1, said that this resolution was of a procedural nature. On 28 March 2008 the Human Rights Council had adopted the draft resolution 7/28. In that resolution the Council had tasked the Advisory Committee to prepare a study on best practices while dealing with the problem of missing persons. Further, at its ninth session, the Human Rights Council had requested the Committee to prepare and submit that study at its twelfth session. Since the issue was a rather complex one and needed thorough examination, the study had not been finalized to date. In August, the Advisory Committee had recommended that the Council adopt a decision at its current session, which would request the Advisory Committee to finalize the work and submit the study to the Council at its fourteenth session next June. The draft decision before the Council did exactly that. Azerbaijan appealed to all members of the Council to support this procedural draft decision as contained in L. 1 and adopt it without a vote.

In a decision on United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (A/HRC/12/L.11), adopted without a vote, the Human Rights Council welcomes the various initiatives aiming at furthering the discussions on the draft United Nations declaration on human rights education and training, in particular the holding of a seminar in Marrakech on 16 and 17 July 2009, which provided the Advisory Committee with substantial elements that will help it in the drafting process of the declaration; and decides to hold a high-level discussion on the draft declaration during its thirteenth session.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), introducing draft resolution L.11 on behalf of Morocco, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Italy, Slovenia, the Philippines and Senegal, thanked all delegations that had participated in the informal consultations. Pursuant to resolution 6/10 adopted by the Council in 2007, the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee had been requested to prepare a project for a declaration on human rights education. The Advisory Committee had drafted a questionnaire on the subject. The education and human rights training centre had announced its attention to organize a seminar to help the Advisory Committee in this work. The centre felt that it was necessary to have a high level discussion to mark the launch of the intergovernmental negotiation process on this important draft declaration.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09124E