HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS OUTCOME OF UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW ON ETHIOPIA; HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review on Ethiopia, thus concluding its review of outcomes of countries considered during the December 2009 session of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group. It then held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review.

Fisseha Yimer, Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, said by actively participating and engaging in the Universal Periodic Review process, the Government had once again demonstrated its commitment to the fulfilment of all human rights obligations, and its readiness to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms. The Government was encouraged by the largely positive nature of the review process, which acknowledged the myriad achievements registered in the country in the protection and promotion of human rights. The Government welcomed many of the observations made during the review process aimed at helping the Government to achieve its primary goal in consolidating democracy and good governance.

Among issues raised by delegations on the review of Ethiopia was that Ethiopia had adopted a positive and open attitude on the challenges and opportunities of the fight for human rights, and had given serious responses to questions made, adopting most of the recommendations, and preparing for their follow-up. Despite being a developing country, a victim of the unjust economic order and facing many challenges, progress had been achieved in terms of health, education, rights of disabled persons, children and women. The Government was determined to work for the promotion and protection of human rights, and had seen constant progress in bringing about economic development. The international community should continue its assistance to Ethiopia, as that progress must be supported by cooperation and financial assistance, particularly from developed countries.

Speaking on the review of Ethiopia were Algeria, Cuba, Pakistan, Canada, China, Djibouti, Republic of the Congo, Morocco, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Botswana, Cameroon, Russian Federation and Switzerland. Also speaking were the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, Human Rights Watch, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Amnesty International, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Interfaith International, and Civicus- World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

The Council then adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review on Ethiopia.

The Council also held a general debate on its agenda item on the Universal Periodic Review, with speakers saying, among other things, that three years on, the Universal Periodic Review had lived up to its expectations as a States-driven process, and it had shown its substance as a unique mechanism on international human rights monitoring. Not only was it a serious incentive for States to observe human rights but it had also helped spread a culture of human rights; it was the only mechanism based entirely on voluntary contribution by States. The credibility of the process relied on the commitment of States under review to provide clear and precise responses to the recommendations put forward. The Review represented a unique opportunity to undertake a general and critical review of the human rights situation in all countries, and should be approached in a serious manner based on the fundamental principles of cooperation, transparency and inclusiveness.

Despite all achievements there was, however, room for improvement in order to ensure that the process remained impartial and credible. There was concern for the persisting troublesome tendencies that could undermine the basic principles of the Review and confidence in the Council as a whole, and all countries should make efforts to prevent converting this mechanism into a "formal paper" process. All stakeholders should continue to prioritize the sharing of best practices; endeavour to periodically provide updates on the level of implementation of recommendations made during the review; and exchange views on how to strengthen the mechanism within the framework of agreed modalities. Ultimately, the basic responsibility for human rights lay with the States themselves.

Speaking in the general debate were Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, India, China, Norway, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Japan, Ghana, United Kingdom, Cuba, United States, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Turkey, Morocco, Canada, Ecuador, Algeria, Israel, Colombia, Czech Republic, United Arab Emirates and Azerbaijan.

Also speaking were Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, Colombian Commission of Jurists, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, International Service for Human Rights, and Amnesty International.

Speaking in right of reply were Benin, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the United States.

Iran spoke on behalf of a number of countries to highlight the Nowruz or new day festival.

The next meeting of the Council will be on Monday, 22 March at 10 a.m., when it will hold a discussion on follow-up to the Council’s Special Sessions concerning the Occupied Palestinian territories, and will then hold a general debate on its agenda item on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.


Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review on Ethiopia

Fisseha Yimer, Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, said that by actively participating and engaging in the review process, the Government of Ethiopia had once again demonstrated its commitment to the fulfilment of all human rights obligations, and its readiness to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms. With respect to some recommendations which required further consideration by the Government, the delegation had promised to consider them in detail, and now wished to inform the Council that all recommendations underwent a deep reflection and deliberation among relevant authorities. The Government had also held bilateral discussions with a number of delegations on their recommendations. The Government of Ethiopia was further encouraged by the largely positive nature of the review process, which acknowledged the myriad achievements registered in the country in the protection and promotion of human rights. Several recommendations and questions had been raised on the question of a standing invitation to the Special Procedures - the Government considered that accommodating requests for visits required deliberate planning and organization, and that Member States should be judged by the nature of their cooperation with the mechanisms, not by the semblance of formality surrounding it.

Delegations raised questions and made recommendations on the abolishing of the death penalty. While the Government did not accept this recommendation, it should be pointed out that in Ethiopia actual executions rarely occurred, amounting to a de facto moratorium. The signature and ratification of international human rights instruments was also an issue - it should be pointed out that Ethiopia was signatory to all key international human rights instruments, and the Government would continue to examine the request for consideration of ratification of other instruments as was necessary. The Government believed the Constitution provided a holistic and systematic solution in addressing the structural root causes of conflicts, and that it had one of the most progressive Constitutions, particularly in ensuring cultural diversity and accommodation. Contrary to unfounded allegations, Ethiopia had a professional and well-disciplined national army, did not recruit children below the age of 18, and the commitment of its members to international humanitarian law and human rights even during the context of armed conflict had been well proven. The Government found it difficult to accept recommendations imbued with the implication that members of the defence forces often violated human rights with impunity. The Government welcomed many of the observations made during the review process aimed at helping the Government to achieve its primary goal in consolidating democracy and good governance.

BOUALEM CHEBIHI (Algeria) said Ethiopia was a brotherly country which was host to the headquarters of the African Union. During the review of Ethiopia’s national report, the Algerian delegation had seen that the Government was determined to work for the promotion and protection of human rights, and encouraged it in its efforts to reduce poverty. Ethiopia had seen constant progress in bringing about economic development, among others, and Algeria welcomed the Government’s will to persevere. Algeria urged the international community to continue its assistance to that country and recommended that the Council adopt the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review on Ethiopia.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba) said Cuba congratulated the Government of Ethiopia for having accepted many of the recommendations, including those presented by Cuba that related to improving access to health – particularly through cooperation and better financial assistance – and the improvement of the quality of education. Despite being a developing country, a victim of the unjust economic order and facing many challenges, Cuba called attention to the progress that had been achieved in Ethiopia in terms of health, education, rights of disabled persons, children and women. That progress must be supported by cooperation and financial assistance, particularly from developed countries. Cuba encouraged Ethiopia to continue protecting and promoting the human rights of its citizens and reiterated its solidarity and cooperation with that African country with which it had historic ties of friendship and cooperation.

SAEED SARWAR (Pakistan) thanked Ethiopia for its frank and comprehensive presentation. Pakistan noted with appreciation that Ethiopia was striving to improve the quality of life of its citizens, which would in turn ensure sustainable development. Pakistan was pleased that Ethiopia would ratify certain human rights instruments. It was confident that Ethiopia would continue efforts to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights for its citizens.

MANON BOISCLAIR (Canada) reiterated that non-governmental organizations played a crucial role in the protection and promotion of human rights. Canada was disappointed that Ethiopia had rejected releasing politicians in order to allow them to take part in forthcoming elections. Nonetheless, it welcomed the country’s efforts in addressing female genital mutilation by fostering an open discussion within communities. Furthermore, Canada continued to encourage Ethiopia to become a party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and looked forward to have a dialogue with Ethiopia on those issues.

LUO CHENG (China) noted that Ethiopia had adopted a positive and open attitude on the challenges and opportunities of the fight for human rights, and had given serious responses to questions made, adopting most of the recommendations, and preparing for their follow-up. Ethiopia should make further efforts to ensure health and education and should try to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. China was convinced that Ethiopia would continue in the path of protection and promotion of human rights.

AHMED MOHAMED ABRO (Djibouti) said Djibouti thanked the delegation of Ethiopia for the information received today. Djibouti welcomed the Government of Ethiopia's manifest good will to protect and promote human rights, and encouraged it to continue in this path. Djibouti welcomed the acceptance by Ethiopia of the majority of recommendations which had been made, and was determined to continue its fraternal cooperation with the aim of ensuring the protecting and promoting of human rights, the right to peace, international solidarity, and regional solidarity in the Horn of Africa.

Mr. MASSAMBA (Republic of the Congo) congratulated Ethiopia for its commitment to implement the recommendations of the Working Group on the ratification and signing of various international instruments, as well as the recommendations relating to the repression of sexual violence committed by armed forces. The Congolese delegation noted with satisfaction that Ethiopia had accepted its recommendations regarding the stepping up of women’s rights, and that it had welcomed most of the recommendations of the Working Group and was committed to their implementation, which was particularly encouraging. The Republic of the Congo encouraged Ethiopia to continue the constructive dialogue with the Council with a view to consolidate the respect of human rights in that country.

MOHAMED ACHGALOU (Morocco) said the Moroccan delegation was pleased to note the favorable reception by Ethiopia of the recommendations on the accession and signing of various international human rights treaties. Morocco was also pleased by the commitment of the Government of Ethiopia to promote coexistence, respect and religious freedom. Also, the announcement of the drawing up of a national action plan for the realization of human rights was likely to promote the history and culture of the Ethiopian people and thereby ensure the unity, integrity and stability of the country. The Moroccan delegation further underscored the active and positive participation of the Ethiopian delegation in the Universal Periodic Review process and in work of the Human Rights Council more generally.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) took this opportunity to thank Ethiopia for its active and constructive participation during various phases of the Universal Periodic Review. Italy noted the number of recommendations received, most of which it had accepted. It was in the interest of the State of Ethiopia and the Universal Periodic Review process to define ways in which to identify which recommendations were accepted. Italy requested Ethiopia to reconsider its position on the death penalty and looked forward to a better working situation for civil society organizations. Italy reiterated its confidence that the authorities would take positive encouragement from this process and work towards improving human rights in the country.

YAHYA ALQAHTANI (Saudi Arabia) thanked Ethiopia for its presentation. Saudi Arabia noted that Ethiopia was perfectly prepared to work with the Council in an open mined way. In addition, it had accepted most of the one hundred or so recommendations made to it through the Universal Periodic Review process. Among other things, Ethiopia had shown its willingness to engage in positive dialogue. That testified to its willingness to promote and protect human rights. Finally, Saudi Arabia encouraged Ethiopia to continue its efforts in that regard, wishing it all the best.

Mr. O. RHEE HETANANG (Botswana) said Botswana was encouraged by the determination shown by the Government of Ethiopia to meet its obligations on human rights protection and promotion, evidenced by the openness and constructive attitude of the delegation of Ethiopia during the Universal Periodic Review process. Ethiopia had been clear that it faced challenges as a developing country, and had adopted all recommendations on collaboration with international institutions towards continuing its endeavours in the field of human rights protection and promotion. Botswana wished Ethiopia well in its continuing efforts.

ANNE CHANTAL NAMA (Cameroon) said Cameroon saluted the efforts made for the protection and promotion of human rights, in particular with regard to the fight against all forms of discrimination, namely the changes made to the Penal Code with the aim of reducing inequality between the sexes and the changes made to legislation on the family to allow women to enjoy the same rights as men with regard to marriage and child custody. Ethiopia was congratulated for having adopted 98 recommendations formulated by the States Parties during the interactive dialogue, even more so as many of them were already being implemented. The Government should implement all recommendations. The Council and the international community should provide increased technical cooperation to Ethiopia with the aim of improving protection of human rights in the country.

SERGEY KONDRATIEV (Russian Federation) congratulated the Ethiopian delegation for its comprehensive presentation on the recommendations it had received. The Russian Federation welcomed the constructive and open approach of the Ethiopian delegation during the consideration of its Universal Periodic Review report, among other occasions. The Russian Federation was of the view that the implementation of the recommendations would serve to improve the situation of human rights in Ethiopia. The high quality of Ethiopia’s report bore witness to the fact that the Government was committed to improve its human rights situation, the Russian Federation further observed.

HAMID ELKAM, of Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, welcomed the recommendations included in the report of the Working Group, particularly those to consolidate the role of the National Commission for Human Rights in order to ensure that it was in conformity with the Paris Principles; to strengthen the National Commission for Human Rights by allowing it access to all detention centers; and that Ethiopia elaborate a national human rights action plan. Those actions would, in the long term, contribute to improve the human rights situation in Ethiopia, the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions underscored.

PHILIPPE DAM, of Human Rights Watch, said continuing armed insurgencies provided no excuse for the rapidly deteriorating conditions for freedom of expression in Ethiopia. A strong, vibrant independent civil society was crucial to address certain issues. Fears that repressive ways may be hostile to civil society had proven true since in the last months, many human rights defenders had fled the country. As Ethiopia neared elections, opposition members had been arrested and detained arbitrarily. A range of more pervasive forms of repression had also been continuing. Human Rights Watch urged Ethiopia to give orders that opposition could carry out meetings without being harassed. An important step would be to facilitate investigations by United Nations Special Procedures.

HASSAN SHIRE SHEIKH, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, commended Ethiopia for its engagement with the Universal Periodic Review process. Still, Ethiopia had failed to protect and promote the rights of human rights defenders and to create an enabling environment for civil society. Furthermore, the very broad definition of what constituted terrorism and terrorist acts had become a cause for concern. The Ministry of Justice subsequently publicly criticized human rights non-governmental organizations that had taken part in the Universal Periodic Review process. That went against the aims of the process. A significant number of human rights defenders had fled the country. The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies urged Ethiopia to refrain from arresting and detaining such groups arbitrarily.

MARIANNE LILIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, said Amnesty International welcomed Ethiopia's support of recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review to ensure the safety of human rights defenders and their freedom to act, and to respond promptly to any complaints of harassment. There was concern, however, that Ethiopia had rejected recommendations to amend the Charities and Societies Proclamation which put at risk the ability of local and international organizations to monitor, report, advocate on and campaign against human rights abuses in Ethiopia. Amnesty International urged Ethiopia to review its position on the recommendation to amend the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation to narrow its definition of terrorism and make it consistent with international human rights standards, as this legislation could be misused to restrict freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and the right to fair trial.

ROWLAND JIDE MACAULAY, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said the criminal prohibitions on sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex in the Penal Code were a violation of established international human rights law, violating international rights to privacy and non-discrimination. Laws criminalising homosexuality posed a threat to public health as they frustrated the important work of creating access to HIV prevention and awareness programmes for men who had sex with men. The Government should repeal all legislative provisions which criminalised sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex, and take measures to recognize and protect the rights of sexual and gender minorities, and extend its HIV intervention programmes to include same-sex practicing people.

BIRO DIAWARA, of Interfaith International, congratulated the Ethiopian Government for the institutional reforms in the field of human rights it had embarked upon in recent years. Interfaith International encouraged Ethiopia to look into the possibilities of implementing the recommendations it had received. As for the many cases of violence, torture, and random arrests against demonstrators that been seen after the 2005 elections, Interfaith International called upon the Ethiopian authorities to shed light on these events and prosecute those responsible for serious human rights violations. Nevertheless, Interfaith International congratulated Ethiopia for the progress it had made in the field of human rights.

RENATE BLOEM, of CIVICUS-World Alliance for Citizen Participation, welcomed Ethiopia’s engagement with the Universal Periodic Review. However, it severely regretted that the Government was not willing to repeal or amend the recently enacted civil society law, or proclamation, despite the many interventions from various Governments and highest United Nations authorities, including the High Commissioner herself. Moreover, CIVICUS believed that the “consultations” of stakeholders leading up to the acceptance of the proclamation were in reality only a motive to legitimize the legislative measure. An illegal act could not be tolerated given the Government’s poor human rights track record, CIVICUS observed, and it strongly urged Ethiopia to reconsider recommendations 23-27 to allow a vibrant civil society back into its society.

Fisseha Yimer, Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, said he had very little time and could not reply to all comments and observations. Nonetheless, he was glad that the Chair had reminded speakers that the debate should indeed focus on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review. Ethiopia thanked members of the Council and observer States for their positive comments. That would encourage it to persevere in the pursuit of human rights in Ethiopia. On non-governmental organizations, they had gone outside the rules of the Universal Periodic Review. Some of them had done that, in particular Human Rights Watch and the Cairo Institute on Human Rights Studies, which Ethiopia called well-known Ethiopia bashers. They had been asked to be fair, objective and constructive. Nonetheless, Ethiopia did not expect anything encouraging from them. In that regard, Ethiopia cited Einstein’s definition of insanity. In general, it would take all recommendations into consideration including those it had rejected, which it would study. Ethiopia hoped that in years ahead the Council would give due encouragement for Ethiopia to pursue the promotion of human rights for the benefit of the people.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said Switzerland wished to thank Ambassador Yimer for his presence and the work in the Working Group, in which Switzerland participated and made suggestions. Two of these recommendations were still in abeyance, on access to the two Optional Protocols on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and an answer was supposed to be given today. In the answer that was received today, the Ambassador said that Ethiopia would take a favourable view of ratifying the Optional Protocol on the rights of children - did this mean that both were envisaged, and if not, could it be clarified.

Fisseha Yimer, Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, said he had thought he made the Government's position very clear. There were three categories - recommendations adopted, recommendations rejected, and those that would be examined further. Ethiopia had taken note of these recommendations, and the position was clear. On the Optional Protocols mentioned by Switzerland, he could not be clearer than he already was.

The Council then adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review on Ethiopia.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group was not only committed to advancing the universal, transparent and inclusive principles of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, but also encouraged its potential in protecting and promoting human rights globally. Three years on, and with 31 African States already examined, the Universal Periodic Review had lived up to its expectations as a States-driven process in the view of the African Group. It was in acknowledgment of that that the African Group accorded the Universal Periodic Review process the desired priority. The African Group would continue to protect its principles as a mechanism unlike any other in the United Nations human rights architecture. It called upon all stakeholders to continue to prioritize the sharing of best practices; endeavor to periodically provide updates on the level of implementation of recommendations made during the review; and exchange views on how to strengthen the mechanism within the framework of agreed modalities.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India) said the Universal Periodic Review was one of the most important mechanisms of the Human Rights Council and a significant achievement. In that regard, India commended the efforts of all States to make it a success, with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and civil society. The continuing problem of determining the list of speakers for the Universal Periodic Review needed to be resolved expeditiously. The interactive dialogue took place solely in the Working Group. To that end, it would be proper for States to refrain from making recommendations at the time of adoption of the Working Group report in the plenary session. Finally, India reiterated its request on the need to adhere to the spirit of the institution-building package of the Council and ensure cooperation from all concerned from a smooth conduct of the Universal Periodic Review process.

LUO CHENG (China) said States were showing growing interest in the Universal Periodic Review, and were constructive in the interactive dialogue. States could report on a voluntary basis as to the implementation of the review. In this context, China was reviewed in February 2009, after which and on that basis it had issued the national human rights policy review, a comprehensive policy document which aimed to cover the whole country, and had since reviewed it and extended it, focusing efforts on employment, healthcare, social security, and improving the situation of farmers. Democracy, the rule of law and political civilisation had been improved, ensuring access to participation in politics, with an emphasis on human rights. The rights of ethnic minorities, women, children, the elderly and those with disabilities had been further enhanced, as had been the building of social security and services for the disabled. Implementation was going as planned and success had been achieved, but due to the financial and economic crisis there were still difficulties and challenges in implementation, but the Government was committed to implementing this National Plan and the Universal Periodic Review outcome so as to ensure that its people could live in harmony and prosperity.

BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway) said Norway was a strong supporter of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism as a vital institution of the new Human Rights Council. The Universal Periodic Review represented a unique opportunity to undertake a general and critical review of the human rights situation in all countries. It should be approached in a serious manner based on the fundamental principles of cooperation, transparency and inclusiveness. It was important that statements and recommendations were accurately reflected in the report of the Working Group. Norway agreed that that must be done in an efficient manner but – in order for the Universal Periodic Review to be effective – quality should not be compromised. As part of the upcoming review, Norway believed that it was necessary to carefully consider both the role of the troika and the time allotted between the interactive dialogue and the adoption of the report in the Working Group. The country under review was free to decide which recommendations to accept or reject and Norway strongly believed that the credibility of the process relied on the commitment of States under review to provide clear and precise responses to the recommendations put forward.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said in over three years the Universal Periodic Review had shown its substance as a unique mechanism on international human rights monitoring. Not only was it a serious incentive for States to observe human rights but it had also helped spread a culture of human rights. It was the only mechanism based entirely on voluntary contribution by States. Still, alarming trends could already be seen, including double standards and politicization. States going through the review should show a willingness to participate in it. The Russian Federation urged States to take into account the level of development and the particularities of the countries going through the review. One component of it was the recommendations result of the review. Ultimately, the basic responsibility for human rights lay with the States themselves.

SVITLANA HOMANOVSKA (Ukraine) said the Universal Periodic Review was an extremely important tool which, if it worked properly, could improve the situation of human rights globally - therefore it was very important to carefully observe the functioning of this mechanism to identify and address the inherent weaknesses. There was concern for the persisting troublesome tendencies that could undermine the basic principles of the Universal Periodic Review and confidence in the Council as a whole, and all countries should make efforts to prevent converting this mechanism into the "formal paper" process. The Universal Periodic Review should be universal also in terms of the participation of the States in the process, and thus due attention should be paid to the Universal Periodic Review list of speakers problem. Ukraine continued to support the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and expressed readiness to participate in the process of its possible improvement.

KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan) said Japan appreciated that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had been playing a significant role in protecting and promoting human rights through active and constructive dialogues with all States and other stakeholders, including civil society. Japan fully supported the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and would spare no efforts in further enhancing the effectiveness of that mechanism. At the same time, there was a need to be aware that there were limitations to that mechanism, and one should not hesitate to use other tools that the Council possessed when necessary. For example, at the adoption of the outcome document of the Universal Periodic Review report in this plenary yesterday, a State under review did not make clear what recommendations it had accepted. That ran counter to the spirit of genuine dialogue and States under review should consider in good faith the recommendations made in the Working Group session and respond to them in a clear and sincere manner. Considering the importance of engaging in dialogue, Japan believed that as many countries as possible which wished to take the floor should be able to do so; every country’s voice counted. For that, an equitable solution for all countries needed to be ensured, regardless of the regional group it belonged to.

MERCY YVONNE AMOAH (Ghana) thanked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for its very important work in facilitating the Universal Periodic Review process. The Universal Periodic Review had brought added-value to the work of the Council and had proved to be an impartial and useful mechanism. The process of elaborating the Universal Periodic Review report at the national level provided an opportunity for the State to engage in dialogue with stakeholders, enabling it to gain insights into its own weaknesses or inefficiency in its human rights protection system. Despite all achievements there was however room for improvement in order to ensure that the process remained impartial and credible. Among the outstanding issues which required resolution were the question of the speakers’ list and the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance to assist countries in implementing Universal Periodic Review recommendations.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said by using a range of mechanisms including legislation, the development of strategies and practical actions, and by working at both Devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government level, significant progress had been made in the United Kingdom. Action had been taken to reduce child poverty. Similarly, legislation was being developed to further address discrimination on the basis of age. New strategies had been produced across the United Kingdom to address the challenge of domestic violence, and it was also exploiting new and existing processes to address the challenge of protecting human rights and ensuring effective counter-terrorism measures. On a practical level, the United Kingdom was addressing concerns about overcrowding in prisons. Finally, at the time of its Review, the United Kingdom was unable to accept a recommendation to remove the two remaining reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child - after further consideration, the United Kingdom was able to lift these reservations in November 2008, and thereby implement an additional recommendation. The United Kingdom Government and the Devolved Administrations were committed to implementation of the Universal Periodic Review.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said it could not be said that unilateral approaches had been entirely done away with in the Council’s work. Truth continued to be obscured by some actors and double-standards continued to be used. An objective analysis nevertheless allowed concluding that those who were really committed to the Universal Periodic Review had allowed preserving it as an effective and legitimate instrument of exchange and genuine dialogue for the promotion and protection of human rights in all parts of the world. Cuba once more sounded a warning bell about the dangers associated with ideas put forward by some Northern powers who alleged that they were attempting to improve the situation on the ground. The sanctions leveled at the countries in the South were not credible when impunity remained in cases in the North. Cuba was also of the view that the effective nature of the Universal Periodic Review depended on making the way it worked easier. Turning to the review process, the Cuban delegation said that it had full respect for the creative fever that any review process engendered. However, that should not lead to disregarding the manipulation attempts. Rather, the review should focus on carrying out the necessary changes. Strengthening cooperation and respect and stepping up credibility were sine qua non requirements in ensuring that the Council had the guiding role that it merited.

JOHN C. MARIZ (United States) said that the United States believed that the words and ideas expressed in the resolution that had established the Universal Periodic Review process should be faithfully carried out by every State under review. The United States were firmly committed to do so when coming under review this November. They were however concerned by the manner in which the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had addressed yesterday’s adoption of the outcome. All States had to clearly specify how they had treated each recommendation. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s non-compliance was undermining the spirit and intent of the institution-building package. The United States were looking forward to their Universal Periodic Review in November. By then, Government teams would have participated in public meetings in over ten cities throughout the country. Their aim was to create an open, inclusive and ongoing process that would lead not only to a successful review but also to serve as an example that others might follow.

MAYSA URENA MENACHO (Plurinational State of Bolivia) recognized the importance of the Universal Periodic Review as a review mechanism for the implementation of human rights. It was not just a case of giving and receiving recommendations - countries could benefit from the drafting of the report. This was a voluntary process, and it led to a new awareness of human rights, and was an effort that should take place with the full participation of civil society. In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, it had led to a mainstreaming of human rights at various levels, national and local, and the involvement of civil society had led to greater expectations in the country with regard to human rights. The recommendations received had been widely circulated in full transparency. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was extremely useful - its prerogative was that it was both voluntary and a multilateral peer review, and this was the only way to make real progress in the respect for and protection and promotion of human rights in all countries. The Government firmly rejected any unilateral attempt to judge human rights in a country, believing that this was politicised and hampered human rights as Governments used it as a tool to punish those who did not genuflect before their colonialist power.

ALI ONANER (Turkey) said the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had thus far created a positive working environment in which States were able to discuss their achievements and challenges in a constructive and self-critical manner. The Universal Periodic Review had also been instrumental in raising awareness about human rights in individual States and served as a forum for sharing best practices. The collective commitment to preserve and reinforce the mechanism should enable the Council address the shortcomings that had recently been witnessed. The Turkish delegation observed that countries had been careful in preserving the mechanism of peer review, saying it welcomed the fact that groups had refrained from making statements, keeping it as a process between individual States. That approach must be maintained in order to avoid risks of undermining that valuable instrument. The politicization of the Universal Periodic Review must be avoided and equal treatment for all should be ensured; what Turkey understood by that concept was providing identical opportunities and rights to every State. The role of the Presidency would continue to be crucial in securing that objective.

OMAR RABI (Morocco) said that the Universal Periodic Review was an innovative mechanism of the Human Rights Council; it had become the cornerstone of the United Nations human rights bodies. The Universal Periodic Review was the success story of the Human Rights Council. It had proved to be quite effective, unlike other human rights mechanisms that were more confrontational and politicized. Some countries had carried out a mid-term review of the implementation of the recommendations. This practice should be formally established during the review of the mechanism. It was also important to start thinking about the ways on how to support countries in achieving their recommendations. They should further allow all stakeholders to be better prepared for the second round of the Universal Periodic Review. The information in the second-round reports should not be repetitive but should include new information, as well as information on the follow-up to the recommendations that were made during the first round.

JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said the Universal Periodic Review was a new tool to engage every country on concrete measures to improve respect for human rights; its constructive and cooperative character and its universality were its distinctive advantages. The Universal Periodic Review had already contributed to positive steps by many countries, but a full assessment would need to await the second cycle. Canada underwent the Universal Periodic Review in February 2009, and consultations were underway within the federal Government and with the provinces and territories on possible measures to implement the accepted recommendations. While the Universal Periodic Review had already demonstrated significant potential to lead to positive change on the ground, Canada regretted efforts by some States to orchestrate a white wash of their human rights record by attempting to stack the speakers lists in the Working Group and plenary with friendly States or Government-organised non-governmental organizations. States should provide a substantive response explaining why they rejected any particular recommendation. All States should participate constructively in the process and make specific recommendations that were consistent with human rights.

JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador) said the Ecuadorian delegation reaffirmed the concepts and ideas that the head of the Ecuadorian delegation had explained during the eighth session of this Council in June 2008. That was that Ecuador had made a contribution to the Human Rights Council to ensure that it could fulfill the historic aims for which it had been established. One of the most useful mechanisms of the international community, the Universal Periodic Review, was an innovative instrument allowing the participation of States, civil society and Special Procedure mechanisms. Ecuador was firmly convinced that the Universal Periodic Review was an appropriate mechanism to assess the human rights in States, but it did not recognize the legitimacy that any State report on the human rights situation in another State. Such reports were not based on a constructive dialogue, which was a pre-requisite for appropriate participation. As for the review, Ecuador urged the Council to think about the unilateral and biased reports carried out by some States; those were an affront to international law and the United Nations human rights system.

BOUALEM CHEBIHI (Algeria) said that Algeria welcomed this general discussion; it was very important because it allowed countries to express their views on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The Universal Periodic Review was so important that it had been discussed on several occasions. It was an essential mechanism for promoting human rights and making them better known. It had a clear added-value as it allowed for the exchange of information among systems and societies. It helped bring about the universal promotion of human rights. Algeria was strongly committed to continue working with the mechanism and to strengthen it. It could also be interesting to assess the number of recommendations that had been adopted overall.

AMANDA GRUDINSKAS (Israel) said recalling the principles underlying the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, including the promotion of the universality, interdependence, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights, and for the Universal Periodic Review to be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicised manner, Israel remained concerned with the approach of certain States to the process, which were seeking to hinder it rather than improve the human rights situation on the ground. These States, including Member States, and candidate States to the Human Rights Council, politicised their response to particular recommendations and in some cases summarily rejected recommendations, clearly misrepresenting international law and/or the recommendations submitted. In this regard, all States should work towards ensuring the credibility and legitimacy of the Review process. The Working Group reports must also accurately reflect the discussions and recommendations that occurred during the Working Group. Israel encouraged further such practice by the troika members and the Secretariat without interference from any State.

ALMA VIVIANA PEREZ GOMEZ (Colombia) said once the final report of a State was accepted, the process was not over; the process must continue to improve human rights. That was a good process and Colombia had started monitoring it. Colombia had an updated table on the implementation of its commitments and recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review which could be found on the website of the presidential programme. The most important developments for Colombia were the decrease of the crime rate, strengthening of demobilizing policies, and combating enforced disappearances and allegations of torture. However, programmes that targeted all forms of discrimination were needed and Colombia would continue its follow-up and implementation of recommendations. Next Tuesday, for example, Colombia would hold an event on monitoring of its Justice and Peace Law.

PATRICK RUMLAR (Czech Republic) said the Czech Republic had for the last two years been implementing recommendations from the first Universal Periodic Review of April 2008, and would like to use this opportunity to provide a brief update on national implementation measures in five areas that had received particular attention: first, a comprehensive legislative framework for protection against discrimination was embedded in national legislation through a new antidiscrimination law, and the Government had adopted the National Action Plan of Inclusive Education which foresaw a further comprehensive set of measures to ensure effective access of Roma children to mainstream education; second, on cases of sterilisations without proper former informed consent, the Government had officially expressed regret at the individual errors identified; to eliminate attitudes allowing or condoning violence against children, a campaign “stop the violence against children” had been started in May 2009; fourth, to strengthen the protection of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, new educational material was introduced to assist teachers in preventing and dealing with homophobic bullying; and finally the Czech Republic had successfully completed two ratification processes, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates) said the delegation of the United Arab Emirates had been delighted to participate in the Universal Periodic Review. Today, one year after the adoption of their report, the United Arab Emirates had ratified the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities. They had also submitted their periodic reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Two Special Rapporteurs had visited the country. They had strengthened the capabilities of the Human Rights Office and had also set up a centre for children and women that were victims of violence and a center for victims of trafficking in human beings.

HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan) said as an objective, non-selective and transparent mechanism, the Universal Periodic Review provided an avenue for all countries to be reviewed under the same criteria. Azerbaijan commended the serious engagement of States under review and the broad consultation process with all stakeholders, including civil society, prior to the submission of national reports. While recognizing the success of the Universal Periodic Review, miracles should not be expected from this unique mechanism, the Azerbaijani delegation underscored, saying the Universal Periodic Review was not a magical tool to improve human rights records with one decision. Countries should make considerable efforts to translate the recommendations made in good faith into concrete action and to increase the efficiency of Universal Periodic Review. The work after the review was therefore crucial. Azerbaijan did not see any reason to make major changes to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism which was working well so far.

JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said yesterday, for the first time, a State under review did not clearly identify any recommendations as accepted, instead rejecting 50 and simply taking note of another 117. A similar challenge was faced in other situations. Many more States had addressed some recommendations, but not been clear in their position on others, leaving uncertainty about the outcome. There were also many best practices. States under review were entitled to decide which recommendations they accepted, which they rejected, and which they noted - at a minimum, however, all stakeholders were entitled to clarity. The Council could also decide whether specific additional follow-up was necessary in a particular case, as if most recommendations were merely noted, they effectively remained pending. It was time to institutionalise best practices.

NATHALIE JEANNIN, of International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, said that the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture had just issued a report on the Universal Periodic Review, called: “Universal Periodic Review: an Ambivalent Exercise”. The report gave a lukewarm assessment of the first Universal Periodic Review session. They had witnessed real commitment by States to improve the situation on the ground. They however urged States to give clear replies to the recommendations and to accept them all. The quality of recommendations made to States was essential. The Working Group Members and the Council should make clear, accessible recommendations, so as to make the Universal Periodic Review a valuable tool. The International Federation was also alarmed by States rejecting recommendations by saying that they were not in line with their national law.

ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said several States had recommended that Colombia take all measures to have an efficient investigation and bring to justice those responsible for extrajudicial executions. Those recommendations had been accepted by Colombia but much remained only good intentions. For example, regarding 1,373 investigations for homicides that had probably been committed by members of the armed forces, so far only 2 per cent of those cases had had sentences handed down on them. The Colombian Commission of Jurists further underscored that it was of grave concern that 38 military personnel who had been accused of forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions of 19 young people in the municipality of Soacha had been freed.

ADINA FENTRON, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, said the International Humanist and Ethical Union was pleased that the Universal Periodic Review was beginning to prove itself. Some States had abused the process by refusing to take factual reports into account or by rejecting recommendations reflecting their responsibilities, and this with impunity. The role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was vital in the process of the Universal Periodic Review, but what was lacking was an obligation by States to pay attention to their reports, and NGO reports were often ignored or rejected as being politically motivated. States should protect human rights defenders submitting such reports. Some States praised their friends without any critical mindset, even countries with a debatable human rights record. These issues should be addressed in the review of the mechanism.

JEREMIE SMITH, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that the human rights situation of 11 countries from the Arab Group had been reviewed in the Universal Periodic Review. Israel had also come under review, but had thus far refused to accept the large majority of recommendations presented by the Universal Periodic Review Working Group, rendering its Universal Periodic Review ineffective. Almost all countries of the Arab Group had engaged at a high-level and had accepted many proposed recommendations. Unfortunately, this had not resulted in any significant national attempts by any Arab Government to implement their Universal Periodic Review commitments. In some cases, the human rights policies had even worsened.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, said it was five years now since the Universal Periodic Review had been established. As soon as the new mechanism was put in place, civil society, non-governmental organizations, and particularly victims that had put hope in the new mechanism, had been disappointed and vowed to silence. It was said that the Council would cooperate closely with Governments, civil society and all appropriate stakeholders, but the Council did not accept criticism and practiced very little self-criticism. Also, there was no civil society participation in the Working Group. The credibility of the Human Rights Council had been in question since 2006 and its ability to really respond to the needs of victims was questionable.

GARETH SWEENEY, of International Service for Human Rights, said International Service for Human Rights wished to commend the many States that had expressed support for the establishment of an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights follow-up unit for implementation of Universal Periodic Review recommendations. The current reporting on national consultation processes during reviews could improve, as well as the reflection of views of national civil society in national reports. There was concern for the increasing rejection of recommendations based on international treaty obligations on the grounds that existing national laws or practices prohibited their implementation. Members of the Working Group were encouraged to hold States under review to a more vigorous account in order to ensure that the credibility of the Universal Periodic Review was not irrevocably harmed before the completion of the first cycle.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, noted that diplomats continued to queue, often for extended periods and occasionally throughout the night, to obtain speaking slots during the Universal Periodic Review. This was a senseless waste of human talent. Reaching satisfactory arrangements for the speakers’ lists was surely not rocket science. A variety of options had been proposed; each had its advantages and disadvantages. Yet, considering the vast diplomatic talent associated with the Council, one was entitled to expect that with good will and determination, it would be possible to find a generally acceptable approach to the speakers’ lists. It the Council was unable to resolve these problems, what hope did it have of resolving any of the much more substantial challenges associated with ensuring the effective functioning of the Council, Amnesty International wondered.


Right of Reply

NAIM AKIBOU (Benin), speaking in a right of reply, expressed his surprise and indignation regarding the words pronounced by the representative of a non-governmental organization during the adoption of Equatorial Guinea’s report this morning. According to that statement, the authorities of Equatorial Guinea had abducted opponents to its regime in Benin. That was however more the speaker’s fantasy than a reality, the Beninese delegation said. The Governments of Equatorial Guinea and Benin had excellent and brotherly relationships and were working closely together towards the development and happiness of their peoples. Freedom of expression and the press was part of the daily life of Benin and citizens and the mass media would therefore have been quick to denounce any such events if they had actually happened. These accusations were the fruit of a very fertile imagination, Benin underscored, requiring that an independent inquiry be made to verify the allegations of this morning.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically and resolutely rejected the unsubstantiated allegations made by the United States and one of its allies, which were politically motivated. What happened yesterday was a premeditated and unprovoked attack by Western countries against a sovereign State. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea attached importance to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which treated all countries impartially, unlike country mandates which selected countries for other purposes than human rights. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had therefore participated in the Working Group in sincerity, and had examined all recommendations. However, the country had been named and shamed blindly, and one country had even joined its allies without reading the report which clearly said which recommendations were rejected and which were accepted. This would lead to further politicisation and double standards, and bring blame on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea therefore rejected this behaviour categorically, and reminded the United States that in view of its human rights record both home and abroad, it had no grounds to refer to other people's human rights’ records.

JOHN MARIZ (United States), speaking in a right of reply, said that the United States would respectfully want to ask the delegate of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to what unsubstantiated allegations he had been referring to. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had not specified which recommendations they had rejected and which they had taken note of. The United States would be more than happy to hear from the delegation which recommendations had been adopted or not.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), in a second right of reply, said the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea resolutely rejected another politicized allegation of the United States. That allegation was construed as deliberately hampering the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea rejected such moves and urged for politicized and ill-minded maneuvers to be checked. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reminded the United States of all human rights violations that took place in that country as well as those that were committed by its troops abroad.

JOHN MARIZ (United States), speaking in a second right of reply, said for the record, the distinguished representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had for the third time expressly refused to clarify which recommendations the country might have accepted, might have rejected, and might have taken note of, by the speaker's count.

Statement on Celebration of Nowruz

MESBAH ANSARI (Iran), speaking on behalf of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey and Turkmenistan, said that, on the eve of 21 March, the International Day of Nowruz, they welcomed General Assembly resolution A/Res/64/253 on recognizing the International Day. Nowruz, which meant “new day”, was the day of vernal equinox. As the Secretary-General had put it in his message, celebration of Nowruz rituals were infused with a spirit of renewal and could inspire all people. It played a significant role in strengthening the ties among peoples based on mutual respect and the ideals of peace and good neighbourhood. They also echoed the General Assembly resolution on encouraging Member States to make efforts to raise awareness about Nowruz.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/039E