HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONTINUES DIALOGUE WITH HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

The Human Rights Council this afternoon continued its interactive dialogue with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, begun this morning following the presentation of her annual report.

Responding to questions and issues raised by delegations, Ms. Pillay said on the thematic priority of migration, and the promotion of a human rights-based approach to this, this was one of the six thematic strategic priorities for the next biennium, and the Office would place importance on eliminating racism and racial discrimination against migrants, on their rights, and on human rights concerns related to immigration, detention and the criminalization of irregular migration. Mainstreaming human rights continued to be a priority in the Office in the interest of system-wide coherence. On the right to development, on which many laid great importance, the protection and promotion of this right and its mainstreaming remained an important dimension of the work. On providing effective and timely support to the right to development mechanisms, the Office worked closely with United Nations bodies and other partner organizations, and worked to strengthen global partnership for development. On human rights and gender, it was addressing de jure and de facto discrimination against women that was the most difficult, as no country in the world was free of this.

Among the many issues raised by speakers was that highlighting specific human rights situations should not be taken as a political, selective, nor critical act, but should rather be seen as serving to promote dialogue between the countries concerned on the one hand and the Human Rights Council, and, by extension, the international community on the other. The upcoming review of the work and methods of the Council should ensure better functioning of the existing human rights machinery and the Council should not be diverted from taking up pressing human rights issues which it had a core responsibility to address. When meeting the expectations of credibility, impartiality and non-selectivity, the Council could truly make a difference on the ground, and therefore the review process should not focus on criticism but rather be aimed at making the necessary adjustments. Now was the appropriate time to bolster cooperation, assistance and exchange of views in the context of transparency.

Speakers said the Special Procedures served as an important mechanism for responding to human rights violations. Some remained concerned that some countries used invitations to the Special Procedures to project an image of openness and cooperation while deliberately obstructing the requests for visits. The principal objective of the Special Procedures was to inform the Council of an issue or a specific situation and to formulate recommendations to advance human rights. The work of the Special Procedures, as an independent mechanism, played an important role in early-warning processes, and drew the international community's attention to emerging and emergency issues. Both country and thematic mandates were indispensable, and were unique sources of expertise and first-hand information through the direct accessibility of these mandates to victims and witnesses, and through their capacity to work closely with human rights defenders.

The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was one of the most innovative mechanisms that the Council had created, but speakers underscored that there remained room for improvement in that regard, particularly in ensuring that uniform standards were applied in the review of all Member States. More work should also be undertaken with regard to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, all of which constituted gross human rights violations and continued to bedevil many societies, with the poorest and most vulnerable bearing the brunt. The special attention the Office paid to the Universal Periodic Review process was a most significant Council innovation, with the aim of maintaining and improving its efficiency and preventing it from becoming routine. The success of the Universal Periodic Review depended on the constructive position of States and their willingness to act.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Japan, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Libya, United Kingdom, Italy, Maldives, Hungary, Ukraine, Switzerland, South Africa, Austria, Ecuador, Germany, Czech Republic, Ireland, Burkina Faso, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mexico, New Zealand, Armenia, Yemen, Slovakia, Costa Rica, Thailand, Colombia, Bangladesh, Djibouti, African Union, Greece, Republic of Korea, Iran and Australia.

Also speaking were the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions. The Commissioner for Human Rights, Humanitarian Action and Relations with Civil Society of Mauritania also took the floor.

Non-governmental organizations taking the floor included Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peoples, European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, Indian Council of South America, North South XXI, International Service for Human Rights and United Nations Watch.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 9 a.m. on Friday, 5 March, when it will first conclude the interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner, following which it will begin with the presentation of thematic reports from the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, following which it will hold a general debate.

Interactive Dialogue with High Commissioner for Human Rights

KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan) said in future efforts, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should focus more on the promotion of civil and political rights such as the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, the prohibition of torture, the rule of law, and judicial independence. The Human Rights Council Special Procedures served as an important mechanism for responding to human rights violations, and the activities of the mandate holders were commended. States should invite mandate holders to visit their countries. Ensuring the independence of mandate holders and supporting their work would lead to the protection and promotion of human rights. Japan believed that technical assistance was a vital tool for the improvement of human rights situations - the prerequisite for technical cooperation, however, should be that there was political will and determination by the host country to improve the protection of human rights. The Office played a central role in coordinating technical cooperation in the areas of human rights. At the same time, mainstreaming the human rights agenda in the entire United Nations system was indispensable. Highlighting specific human rights situations should not be taken as a political, selective, nor critical act, but should rather be seen as serving to promote dialogue between the countries concerned on the one hand and the Human Rights Council, and, by extension, the international community on the other.

SHEHAB A. MADI (Jordan) said that the upcoming review of the work and methods of the Council should ensure better functioning of the existing human rights machinery and the Council should not be diverted from taking up pressing human rights issues which it had a core responsibility to address. Jordan appreciated the greater attention devoted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to critical issues, including combating discrimination and support to victims, gender equality and women’s rights and the discussions pertaining to the financial crisis and climate change. The situation of civilian populations in armed conflict remained alarming. Due regard and full compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law must be adhered to and the Council should continue to play a significant role in this regard. Jordan commended the efforts of the High Commissioner and her Office in combating impunity and strengthening accountability.

HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan) said as the Human Rights Council was approaching its review, the Council’s achievements regarding the promotion and protection of human rights could not be denied. In fact, when meeting the expectations of credibility, impartiality and non-selectivity, the Council could truly make a difference on the ground. Azerbaijan therefore agreed with the High Commissioner that the review process should not focus on criticism but rather be aimed at making the necessary adjustments. Azerbaijan had made significant efforts in the field of human rights. This was notably highlighted by the fact that the Government had submitted five reports to various United Nations treaty bodies in 2009 alone, and that, in that same year, it had signed the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Azerbaijan also noted with satisfaction that protecting human rights in situations of armed conflict had been included among the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ six thematic priorities for the next biennium, and the Government looked forward to further discussions in that regard.

HUGO BRAUWERS (Belgium) said the independence of the High Commissioner was essential for the full implementation of her mandate, and this needed to be repeated in today's context. Improving cooperation between regional and international mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights was also vital, and was a priority for Belgium. Too many States were still behind repressive measures against persons who had been in contact with Special Procedure mandate holders, and in this context, the initiatives taken by the High Commissioner with States were welcomed. The High Commissioner was asked what measures the Office planned to take in order to cooperate between the United Nations system and regional organizations in the field of human rights.

IBRAHIM A. E. ALDREDI (Libya) thanked the High Commissioner and members of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for their ongoing efforts in the promotion of human rights around the world. The Universal Periodic Review had achieved positive results and although modest, those were a step in the right direction. Cooperation should be strengthened and reinforced between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other regional mechanisms, such as the African Union. Now was the appropriate time to bolster cooperation, assistance and exchange of views in the context of transparency.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said the relationship between the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should continue on the basis of a partnership of equals. The Government welcomed the efforts of the High Commissioner’s Office to support and strengthen the functioning of the Council’s mechanisms, agreeing with the High Commissioner that Special Procedures were critical to advance human rights worldwide. While the United Kingdom was also delighted that more countries had issued standing initiations to Special Procedures this year, it remained concerned that some countries used these invitations to project an image of openness and cooperation while deliberately obstructing the requests for visits. The United Kingdom shared the High Commissioner’s concern about the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran and welcomed her recent approach in that regard, allowing the Office to visit Iran. The United Kingdom also welcomed that the High Commissioner’s Office had expanded the capacity of its field presences, notably through the deployment of rapid response units aimed at supporting countries facing urgent crises.

LAURA MIRIACHIAN (Italy) said the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the opportunity for a dialogue was welcome, and this dialogue should be based on full recognition of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the Office of the High Commissioner. Italy was confident that the upcoming visit of the High Commissioner to Italy would give her a comprehensive picture of the national situation, achievements, and good practices, as well as existing challenges. Italy was committed to fighting against criminal groups that benefited from human trafficking and exploited foreign workers as an integral part of a comprehensive strategy, focused on emergency assistance and social coexistence, as well as on stronger cooperation within the European Union and with neighbouring countries. Italy was also committed to improve the living conditions of Roma and Sinti communities, according to international standards and principles, and to eradicate discriminatory attitudes, combining legal measures with concrete anti-discriminatory attitudes at the social level, particularly through education. Italy would be interested in hearing the High Commissioner's views on how her Office could contribute to an effective programme of technical assistance in the field of human rights in favour of the people of Somalia.

IRUTHISHAM ADAM (Maldives) thanked the High Commissioner for her comprehensive report and the importance it had given to countering discrimination, including discrimination based on gender and disability. The People’s Majlis in the Maldives today had endorsed the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, significantly strengthening the human rights safeguards for disabled persons. In the area of women’s rights, the Maldives had begun a programme to mainstream gender equality across all Government actions and policies. A new gender mainstreaming strategy had been endorsed by the Cabinet, under which a coordination unit within the President’s Office would monitor all Government activities and liaise with assigned gender focal points in each Ministry to ensure that all policies and programmes promoted gender equality. The Maldives saw all those vitally important as women and disabled persons continued to face unacceptable levels of discrimination in all walks of life.

KLARA TUNYOGI AKOTS (Hungary) agreed with the High Commissioner’s view that when examining the work of the Human Rights Council, they should appropriately recognize the Council’s achievements that notably included the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the Council’s ability to sound an alarm regarding crisis situations by convening Special Sessions on urgent matters. Nevertheless, Hungary was of the view that less would be more regarding the Council’s work; reducing the number of agenda items would in fact allow members and observers to be better prepared, thus allowing more fruitful results. Hungary also welcomed the work that had been carried out on issues relating to minorities, an issue to which Hungary attached utmost importance, particularly with regard to minorities’ participation in political and public life. The Government also agreed that the plight of migrants, and particularly that of irregular migrants, was one of the most critical human rights challenges and encouraged the international community to identify best practices that took into account the interests of transit and destination countries, while also respecting the human rights of migrants.

MYKOLA MAIMESKUL (Ukraine) said the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were very important for the protection and promotion of human rights in the world. The Office's achievements in 2009 were impressive. The contribution the Office was making to the activities of the Human Rights Council, including the Universal Periodic Review process, as well as its support of the functioning of the Special Procedures and treaty bodies was appreciated. Ukraine attached great importance to the Office's activities in the field, and commended the support by the Office to establishing and strengthening national human rights institutions through engaging human rights field offices and United Nations country teams. In this context, the High Commissioner was asked to elaborate more on the role of the United Nations country teams in this endeavour.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her support to the Fourth World Congress against the Death Penalty that had taken place last week in Geneva. Special Procedures were a great tool of the Council. Their principal objective was to inform the Council of an issue or a specific situation and to formulate recommendations to advance human rights. It was inadmissible that individuals that met Special Procedures mandate holders feared for their safety and lives. Switzerland strongly condemned such acts and demanded that concerned States investigate those cases and bring to justice those responsible. Combating impunity was a central concern of the commitment of Switzerland to human rights and international humanitarian law. Switzerland thanked the Office for its engagement in this domain, and in transitional justice in particular. Combating impunity also had an educative dimension and it was important that law enforcement officers knew the rights of citizens so that they could respect them. Meeting with the Special Procedures was one of those rights.

JERRY MATTHEWS MATSILA (South Africa) agreed with the High Commissioner that the workload of her Office had increased, thereby necessitating the allocation of additional resources. It would have been useful if the report of the High Commissioner had included a breakdown of costs dedicated to her Office in order to provide the Human Rights Council with a better sense of the shortfalls requiring additional funding. South Africa also agreed that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was one of the most innovative mechanisms that the Council had created, but underscored that there remained room for improvement in that regard, particularly in ensuring that uniform standards were applied in the review of all Member States. More work should also be undertaken with regard to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, all of which constituted gross human rights violations and continued to bedevil many societies, with the poorest and most vulnerable bearing the brunt.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said Austria appreciated the open and transparent approach that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had taken with regard to information on thematic priorities as well as operations in the field. This was the right track to ensure good cooperation between the Office and the Human Rights Council. The up-coming review of the Human Rights Council should in no way divert or impede the Council from addressing the many pressing human rights issues around the globe. No country was free of human rights challenges, and the Human Rights Council must be in a position to consider all human rights violations, whatever their scope and wherever they occurred. Austria was strongly committed to the implementation of the Council's mandate to address situations of violations of human rights. The upcoming review of the working methods would be an important process to take stock on how to do better. On the Universal Periodic Review, the observations made in the report on the need for practical mechanisms to ensure the follow-up and implementation of the many recommendations received by States was very pertinent, and therefore a mechanism should be established to support the follow-up. Regarding thematic priorities, Austria fully supported the emphasis on the fight against all forms of discrimination as well as against impunity. In many States, both phenomena had a particularly undermining effect on public institutions and their ability to effectively protect and promote the human rights of their citizens.

MAURICIO MONTALVO (Ecuador) thanked the High Commissioner for her substantive annual report that summed up the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Migration was particularly important to Ecuador. Ecuador was concerned about the difficult situation of irregular migrants who were vulnerable to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and contemporary forms of discrimination and suffered from the lack of social protection and labour exploitation, also as a consequence of the economic and financial crises. Ecuador welcomed the presidency of the Global Group for Migration by the High Commissioner that would occur in the second half of 2010, and said it would allow active participation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the preparation of the Global Forum for Migration and Development that would take place in Mexico. The focus of the Forum would be migration based on human rights. Ecuador emphasized the importance of dialogue with civil society and the holistic approach to migration.

REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany) wished that the High Commissioner could further elaborate on her assessment that the toolbox of the Human Rights Council should be expanded with a view to promptly and effectively deal with urgent and chronic human rights issues. Could the High Commissioner also provide further details on how her Office could substantially support innovative discussion formats? It also requested an update on the harmonization of the working methods of the treaty bodies as well as on the other proposals that were currently discussed to raise the efficiency of the treaty body system. The discourse the High Commissioner had established with delegations to inform them about the Office’s work and its plans and strategic visions were very valuable. However, while they provided for mutual stimulation for cooperation, these meetings should not be considered an oversight of the Human Rights Council, nor should they allow individual States to oversee the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

TOMAS HUSAK (Czech Republic) said the success of the Human Rights Council was not measured by the amount of its documents and resolutions, but by its usefulness for individual human beings. The ability of the Council to effectively and timely address serious human rights violations, wherever they occurred, was its crucial and underlying task. Thus, the work of the Special Procedures, as independent mechanisms, played an important role in early-warning processes, and drew the international community's attention to emerging and emergency issues. Both country and thematic mandates were indispensable, and were unique sources of expertise and first-hand information through the direct accessibility of these mandates to victims and witnesses, and through their capacity to work closely with human rights defenders. How would the High Commissioner evaluate the prospect of the Universal Periodic Review remaining a positive tool for human rights promotion in the future, and how could the process be adjusted in order to fulfil its purpose? The Government of the Czech Republic was not passive with regard to the situation of the Roma, and even now, in the midst of the financial crisis and the economic downturn, it was allocating considerable funds to tackle the problem.

GERALD CORR (Ireland) said Ireland was particularly grateful for the ongoing refinement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the process of dialogue and exchange of ideas with the Human Rights Council and other stakeholders. Ireland believed that the expert basis of the work of the Office, in particular that of treaty bodies and Special Procedures, should retain its crucial role in all the Council’s discussions and work on human rights. Ireland was pleased to facilitate a meeting of serving and former treaty body members from all regions of the world in Dublin in November last year. They issued the Dublin statement on the process of strengthening the United Nations human rights treaty body system which had elaborated a set of principles which those treaty body members felt should guide the ongoing process of reform of treaty bodies. Ireland saw the Office playing a key role in invigorating the debate on treaty body reform and the development of specific reform proposals.

SALAMATA SAWADOGO (Burkina Faso) said Burkina Faso congratulated the High Commissioner and her team for their professional conduct. It commended the High Commissioner’s dialogue with stakeholders on human rights issues. In 2009, the High Commissioner had carried out some activities with actors in the field of human rights. Those as well as other United Nations and regional mechanisms were crucial. Burkina Faso encouraged that work. It had to be consolidated with the involvement of all stakeholders. With the elaboration of follow up to treaties related to human rights, it was up to the Office and States that had been called upon to produce reports, to works towards making that more coherent. The mission assigned to the Council and the OHCHR was the same; the enjoyment of human rights by all. More should be done to ensure that that happened.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to questions and issues raised, said she had noted the various issues raised by States, and she would take them on board for elaboration at a later stage. Right now, she wished to address questions on the thematic work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and would revert to country situations later. Before responding to the thematic issues, however, on the issue of the geographic composition of the Office, achieving greater geographical representation of the staff remained a priority, and, in line with this, she would continue to implement the procedures and framework for improving geographical diversity, as first presented to the Commission on Human Rights in February 2006. To date, efforts to improve geographical diversity had shown steady improvement. The Office would also continue to pay special attention to gender parity at all levels.

On the thematic priority of migration, and the promotion of a human rights-based approach to this, Ms. Pillay said this was one of the six thematic strategic priorities for the next biennium, and the Office would place importance on eliminating racism and racial discrimination against migrants, on their economic, social and cultural rights, and on human rights concerns related to immigration, detention, and the criminalization of irregular migration. She also called upon States to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. The Steering Committee on ratification of the Convention would have a ratification campaign targeting countries in different regions of the world.

Mainstreaming human rights continued to be a priority in the Office in the interest of system-wide coherence. A new chapter had been opened in this regard to further strengthen United Nations country teams, aiming to mainstream human rights throughout their initiatives. There would be continued focus on building capacity of country teams to respond to national needs and to strengthen the protection system, as well as in helping with follow-up on Universal Periodic Review recommendations. The Office was increasingly requested to give human rights advice to country teams for mainstreaming purposes. Currently, the total number of human rights advisors stood at 16.

On the right to development, on which many laid great importance, the protection and promotion of this right and its mainstreaming remained an important dimension of the work of the Office. On providing effective and timely support to the right to development mechanisms, the Office worked closely with United Nations bodies and other partner organizations, and worked to strengthen global partnership for development. The Office planned to expand advocacy and outreach operations in order to expand the work on the right to development into the work of the Office and its outreach mechanisms. A lot of work was required to have this right taken seriously.

On human rights and gender, the Office was addressing de jure and de facto discrimination against women that was the most difficult, as no country in the world was free of this. The Office was currently preparing reports on maternal mortality and other women's issues for the June session of the Council, and worked to enhance accountability and combat trafficking, whilst monitoring violations of women's rights at the field level, and to generally address women's issues. Gender advisors had been deployed to four regional offices. On Beijing Plus Fifteen, work was integrated within this context. Addressing civil and political rights had and always would remain an important priority of the Office, as would strengthening the rule of law and fighting impunity. The Office provided continual support to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

LJUBICA PERIC, (Bosnia and Herzegovina), said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and United Nations Member States had the common aim of acting together towards the protection and promotion of all human rights. This was why the work of the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were interlinked; they cooperated closely and complemented each other. Bosnia and Herzegovina welcomed that the Office continued to pay special attention to the work of the Council, considering ways to improve the body, such as how to expand the Council's toolbox and make it able to deal promptly and effectively with urgent human rights issues, within the context of the special sessions, and being aware of the necessity to enhance the Council's role as the principal inter-Governmental human rights body. The special attention the Office paid to the Universal Periodic Review process was a most significant Council innovation, with the aim of maintaining and improving its efficiency and preventing it from becoming routine. The report recognised the importance of the Special Procedures as a significant factor in the development of international human rights law, and emphasised the element which could be improved: the gender equality element.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ BASAVE (Mexico) welcomed the High Commissioner for Human Rights and expressed gratitude for the annual report and the explanations Ms. Pillay had provided during the day to the Council. Mexico expressed its full support to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and hoped it would be able to work with full independence. Mexico was pleased to see that the issue of migration was the priority for the future and was very encouraged by the High Commissioner’s work in involving civil society. The High Commissioner should focus more attention to some European countries that seemed to be reticent to recognise the universality of human rights, particularly in the case of migrant workers. Mexico attached special importance to Special Procedures. Their work was fundamental and must remain independent. Mexico asked how the High Commissioner would finance the increasingly important work of Special Procedures and how she could ensure that some countries did not take advantage of them. With regard to persistent violations of human rights, Mexico asked how the High Commissioner might contribute to getting the international community out of the very rigid frameworks she had mentioned in her report and how they could find more innovative ways to grapple with this issue.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) said that under the High Commissioner’s leadership, the Office had been working hard, across an increasingly challenging range of activity in support of the Council. New Zealand strongly endorsed the view that the Council must consider all human rights violations. The Universal Periodic Review was valuable but not a substitute for the Council being equipped to deal with chronic and urgent situations. The Council must be able to deal promptly and effectively with human rights issues as they arose. New Zealand had welcomed bolstering the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights office for the Pacific in Fiji. The Universal Periodic Review had given momentum to real thinking about and commitment to change. However, challenges remained. New Zealand welcomed the High Commissioner’s undertaking in her report to establish a mechanism to support Universal Periodic Review follow up and to speed up implementation on the basis of voluntary funding. Could she provide information on how she envisioned that programme evolving? New Zealand endorsed her expectation that mandate holders should carry out work without threat of misconduct. It thanked her for her report and wished her well in bolstering her Office’s ability to implement its important mandate.

SATENIK ABGARIAN (Armenia) said Armenia fully supported the innovative activities and measures taken by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office in supporting the objectives and work of the Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council fully enjoyed the assistance of the Office, and this would be very helpful during the upcoming Review of the Council, which should be transparent and objective, taking into account the views of States and regional initiatives. The success of the Universal Periodic Review depended on the constructive position of States and their willingness to act. The creation of a support mechanism was welcome. Armenia supported the strengthening of the Special Procedures. The fight against discrimination was a major challenge for the international community, as it led to the most serious human rights violations, and should be combated at all levels. The commitment of the High Commissioner to fight genocide and impunity was appreciated, and Armenia offered its full support in this regard.

FADHI AL-MAGHAFI (Yemen) said the review of the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights showed how much effort had been made by the Office of the High Commissioner in promoting and protecting human rights. The Office had supported the convening of Special Sessions of the Human Rights Council, including sessions on global economic and financial crises and the global food crisis. Yemen underlined the importance of the continuing support of the High Commissioner to these efforts because of the situation in the world today. People were finding it difficult to enjoy rights and fundamental freedoms. As one of the least developed countries, Yemen valued the efforts of the Office on the implementation of the right to development. Other efforts worthy of appreciation were country missions, including the one to Gaza. Yemen urged the High Commissioner to make more efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. The upcoming review of the Council was the appropriate way to examine the achievements of the Council. The Algerian initiative could be a practical method to this and Yemen hoped it would be adopted.

FEDOR ROSOCHA (Slovakia) said Slovakia would like to ask how the High Commissioner for Human Rights saw her Office’s role in supporting the Council’s review process. It commended the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in combating impunity and promoting the rule of law and good governance. Turning to the situation of the Roma, Slovakia objected to her assessment and would welcome clarifications on the reasons that had led her to those conclusions. Combating the social exclusion of the Roma was one of the Government’s policy priorities. Members of the Committee had duly recognized the efforts of the Government in that regard. Slovakia stood ready to provide the High Commissioner with details of Roma-related policies and programmes being implemented by its Government.

EUGENIA GUTIERREZ RUIZ (Costa Rica) said the High Commissioner for Human Rights had mentioned a number of important issues on which she had worked in a committed way, and the Council should discuss them seriously. One of these was the prospects offered by the High Commissioner on the functioning of the Council, from the point of view of cooperation with the Office, highlighting good practices and tools available to the Council, and these tools should be strengthened. Costa Rica granted particular importance to the evolution of the Universal Periodic Review, noting that the mechanism was useful for all, promoting the universality of human rights for all Member States of the United Nations. It was important to avoid duplication of recommendations between the different bodies, including the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review. Costa Rica wished to hear more about a better formula of support for States in their implementation of the recommendations. Costa Rica was concerned by the issues that Ms. Pillay mentioned, and believed it was imperative that the Council pay systematic attention to human rights violations. The Council was capable of responding to human rights violations in various countries, including in its members. Defence and promotion of human rights required the commitment and political determination of all Member States of the Council. The High Commissioner should strengthen cooperation and work on promoting the cross-cutting nature of her work.

SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand) said Thailand appreciated the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in supporting the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. Among those mechanisms, the Universal Periodic Review was a major achievement in terms of ensuring that human rights situations in all countries received equal attention. Nevertheless, the success of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism depended on how States implemented the recommendations that they had voluntarily accepted during the review. Thailand noted with appreciation the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in various thematic areas and underscored that the Government fully supported the six strategic priorities which had been identified for the next biennium. Thailand was convinced that human rights education and training should be part of both short-term and long-term solutions aimed at combating discrimination, and it hoped that the High Commissioner’s Office would include such education and training in its strategy to combat this phenomenon. As host of the OHCHR regional Office for Southeast Asia, Thailand also fully supported the work the Office undertaken in the region. In that regard, the Government encouraged the Office to work more closely with the Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in order to strengthen the latter’s capacity as well as the human rights framework in the region.

ANGELINO GARZON (Colombia) said Colombia thanked the High Commissioner for the report and saw this as an opportunity to bolster dialogue between the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Colombia firmly supported her work and highlighted the importance of her being able to continue to work autonomously. Colombia supported her fight for the rights of women and gender equity. It firmly supported her work to eliminate all forms of discrimination. Colombia would like to move forward to fight racism and to promote the rights of people of Afro descent and indigenous groups. It would continue on its path using the recommendations and commitments of its delegation under the Universal Periodic Review.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said this interaction between the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights was useful and effective in protecting and promoting human rights, which was the common and shared goal. Bangladesh looked forward to reaching a consensus on a formal arrangement of periodic interactions between the Human Rights Council and the Office, respecting each other's mandate. Donor countries should make their contributions non-earmarked so that the mandated activities of the Office could be performed independently, objectively and non-selectively. One thematic area of concern was the resurgence of racist and xenophobic manifestations and growing intolerances in some parts of the world. There were two important omissions in the presentation of the annual report. The first was poverty. Poverty was an affront to human dignity and deprived many of the ability to enjoy their human rights. The global financial and economic crisis had affected millions of poor very badly, and the Office had a role to play in highlighting the human rights aspect of poverty. Second, the issue of climate change was also missing in the report, though the Office had played a commendable job in support of the Copenhagen Summit. The outcome of the Summit was disappointing for all, but they should not lose heart. They should reinvigorate efforts in the human rights arena, particularly in highlighting the human dimension of climate change.

MOHAMED SIAD DOUALEH (Djibouti) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the presentation of her annual report. That report was the result of a year which was rich in challenges and events, and the document indeed constituted a source of inspiration for the work before the Council. Djibouti also greatly appreciated the High Commissioner’s ongoing support aimed at ensuring that her Office conducted its work in both an appropriate and effective manner. It also recognized that the effective review of the Council needed to be based on specific results regarding the improvement of human rights in the field. The Government took note of the priority themes that the High Commissioner had identified. While commending the progress that had been made in achieving those objectives, Djibouti underscored that the collaboration of the High Commissioner’s Office with regional organizations was a precious tool to achieve those goals. The High Commissioner’s support to the Durban Review Conference was also greatly appreciated, as was the fact that the recommendations of the Working Group were now available. What steps needed to be taken to ensure the implementation of those recommendations? Djibouti also underscored that the plight of civilians in armed conflict remained of particular concern to its Government.

KHADIJA R. MASRI (African Union) said the African Union congratulated the High Commissioner for a comprehensive report and expressed its sincere gratitude for her work so far. The African Union had signed an agreement for cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The decade-long agreement between it and the United Nations would create better synergies between the Council and African mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights. The African Union appreciated the creation of a task force, which would assist members in creating anti- discrimination legislation and in identifying appropriate national programmes of action. These were at the centre of the Union’s interest. Urgent global steps had to be taken to ensure political will. The African Union welcomed the High Commissioner’s role on migrants and the promotion and realization of the right to development and making it operational. It renewed its full support to her Office and to bolstering its cooperation for the enjoyment of human rights on the continent and throughout the world.

GEORGE J. KAKLIKIS (Greece) said Greece appreciated the fact that the High Commissioner was exercising her mandate in a very open and transparent way. It was important to safeguard the independence and impartiality of the High Commissioner's mandate and of her Office. The independence of Special Procedures was also crucial. An important issue was the review of the Human Rights Council. The General Assembly would deal with its status. The Council needed to concentrate on its work and functioning. In this context, Greece valued the views and ideas of the High Commissioner on the subject, as her Office supported with its entire staff the collective efforts in the Council. The latter should keep in mind during the process that it was important not to divert it from taking up pressing human rights issues. The Council had a core responsibility to address them, and indeed it had played a very positive role in the protection and promotion of human rights around the world ever since its creation. Further diversification of discussion formats could be explored, but at the same time there should be caution not to overburden the agenda of the Council's regular sessions. Greece would like to put particular emphasis on the work of the Office with regard to the human rights of migrants, in particular those of irregular migrants. There was an increasing need to give particular emphasis to the positive aspects of migration.

LEE SUNG-JOO (Republic of Korea) said in 2009 the High Commissioner and her Office had continued providing substantive and technical support to the Human Rights Council and its treaty bodies. Both had undertaken invaluable advocacy activities to counter various forms of discrimination, enhance the rule of law, combat impunity and make a difference on the ground, among other objectives. The Republic of Korea acknowledged the six priority areas that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had identified but underscored that ensuring the pursuit of economic, social and cultural rights should in no way divert attention from protecting and promoting civil and political rights. The Government agreed with the High Commissioner’s assessment of the Special Procedures, and appreciated the services that the Office had provided to mandate holders to help them discharging their mandates effectively. In that regard, it was crucial to explore ways and means to increase financial and logistical support to mandate holders. The statement which Navi Pillay had delivered today should awaken this Council to the sense of its proper mission. For each, his own soul-searching effort was needed to try and address other’s human rights records. Nevertheless, this must not serve as a pretext for human rights spoilers to evade or counter legitimate challenges of the international community.

MOJTABA ALIBABACI (Iran) said Iran thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her comprehensive report. Iran welcomed her efforts for allowing members to share in the work and ideas. Iran was of the view that enhancing international cooperation had a significant role to play in promoting human rights. Bolstering international cultural dialogue could play a key role in that regard. There was a need for greater support to realize numerous economic, social and cultural rights, the right to development in particular. There were negative impacts of sanctions on the human rights of people living in developing countries. That had to be addressed more concretely by the Office. As stated before, issues that had not been recognized globally as human rights were out of context and unacceptable for Iran. Misinformation had led the High Commissioner to take an inappropriate position on post election events in Iran. Recently, Iran had extended an invitation for the High Commissioner to visit the country.

PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia) said Australia believed in the value of the Special Procedure mandate holders. Australia was also concerned by the High Commissioner's report of incidents, including killings, of persons who had engaged with Special Procedure mandate holders. All States should ensure that those who were in contact with Special Procedures were free from reprisal. The High Commissioner's focus on integrating women's rights into the work of the Human Rights Council was welcome. The Australian Government took the attacks on Indian residents of Australia very seriously, and the law enforcement authorities continued to investigate every attack fully. All elements of these cases, including the racist overtones in some, formed part of these investigations. The Government and Australians themselves opposed intolerance and racism. The Government continued to build Australia as an inclusive and cohesive society, and combated prejudice and discrimination, maintaining effective and independent processes for resolving complaints about prejudice and discrimination. Australia noted with interest the High Commissioner's comments on expanding the tools available to the Human Rights Council, so it could more effectively deal with human rights issues, and welcomed the High Commissioner's views on how these tools would interact with existing mechanisms. Australia would be interested in hearing the High Commissioner's views on the types of practical follow-up mechanisms that could be introduced to increase the effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review process.

JENNIFER LYNCH, of International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institution, said the International Coordinating Committee of national Human Rights Institutions highly valued the long-term commitment and the support that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had shown regarding the establishment and development of national human rights institutions in accordance with the Paris principles. However, as national human rights institutions developed their activities domestically, regionally and internationally, the need for support in the form of training, funding and capacity building continued to increase. The International Coordinating Committee also appreciated the engagement of the Office in assisting national human rights institutions in improving the system-wide coordination by working closely with the broad family. It commended the priority given by the High Commissioner to strengthening international and regional human rights mechanisms. The International Coordinating Committee also shared her view that promoting linkages between domestic, regional and international systems would further enhance the realization of international human rights norms, as well as standards at the national level. It supported the call of the High Commissioner for all actors to build on the momentum gained at the Durban Review Conference, among other measures, by identifying practical steps that needed to be taken to implement the anti-racism agenda.

MOHAMED KHADIRI, of Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, said the Network appreciated the High Commissioner’s leadership and congratulated her for the successful work of her Office. The Network of African National Human Rights Institutions supported the technical and financial assistance the Office had given it. That would ensure the success of its activities. The Rabat conference and the training of commissioners were some of its recent activities. Given high rates of discrimination in Africa, especially against women, the Network would step up its efforts to fight against all forms of discrimination. The food and economic crisis had to be considered by the Office. Other priorities were impunity, migration and torture. The Network looked forward to a fruitful partnership with the Office.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the first round of the Universal Periodic Review would leave the international community with at least one big black hole called the Western Sahara, as neither the Working Group nor the Council considered the protection and promotion in this non-autonomous territory which was still before the Special Committee on Decolonization in New York. A Special Procedure to cover the 16 non-autonomous territories was necessary to provide the needed input for the relevant review. The High Commissioner should advise the Security Council to include a section for the protection and promotion of human rights in the MINURSO (United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) mandate. Such an initiative could also be taken by the Council.

JOHN FISHER, of European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA-EUROPE), in a joint statement with several NGOs1, appreciated that the High Commissioner had recently delivered public statements expressing her deep concern about the recent Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda, as well as the recent arrests in Malawi that followed a same-sex relationship celebration. The Association also expressed its appreciation and strong support that the High Commissioner had explicitly identified human rights issues that related to sexual orientation in the thematic priorities of her Office. It also encouraged the High Commissioner to address gender identity/expression within these priorities. These issues were of crucial and urgent human rights concern and in too many countries lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and inter-sex people continued to face criminal sanctions, killings, violence or torture because of how such people lived or whom they loved. When working on these issues, the High Commissioner would face opposition to her leadership, as did all who worked on them.

LUKAS MACHON, of International Commission of Jurists, said that particularly valuable was the High Commissioner’s emphasis on countering discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The urgency of that issue could not be denied. The international community had to enhance its contribution to preventing human rights violations committed during armed conflicts. Special Procedures had effectively examined human rights situations worldwide and helped States in implementing their legal obligations. The situation in Sri Lanka was of concern as the Government denied the exercise of rights to the political opposition and human rights defenders. The International Commission of Jurists shared her intention to visit Iran soon. Iran’s claims that no human rights defenders had been imprisoned amounted to an abuse of the Universal Periodic Review. The International Commission of Jurists underscored the need for the Council to take action.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said Amnesty International continued to believe that the availability of objective information on manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance throughout the world would contribute to more constructive and effective results-oriented United Nations measures. From what had been heard today, it appeared that some States continued to be very eager to tell the High Commissioner how to do her job. Amnesty International had some suggestions as to areas where the High Commissioner could help Governments in improving their contributions in the Council to protecting human rights. The Council was struggling miserably in fulfilling its mandate to address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations. Although the Council had clear rules and procedures for the nomination and appointment of the Special Procedure mandate-holders, the Council's members and the Consultative Group had been experiencing difficulty in following those rules and procedures. The Office could make an important contribution in improving matters in this context.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said both the global North and South spoke of the Council’s inability to address some specific human rights issues. This was the point where the High Commissioner for Human Rights came in. When some States created obstructions in the Council, among other measures, by deleting important aspects of mandates, they fell on the wayside. For example, the report of the Special Rapporteur on the United States completely lacked any reference to indigenous peoples. That would continue when Independent Experts were intercepted by States. If the Human Rights Council could not implement its own mandate, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could perhaps initiate debates on the most pressing human rights issues, including that of climate change. The Indian Council of South America also encouraged the High Commissioner to convene a seminar on the right to self-determination.

MAGREET WEWERINKE, of North South XXI welcomed the support of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to States seeking to prevent the impact of climate change on human rights, including through a study in that regard, which had been made available by her Office in Copenhagen in December 2009. That study was one of the most valuable contributions of the Office to the work of the Conference of the Parties. Human rights instruments and mechanisms were key to understanding the equity demands of the climate change framework. North South XXI urged the High Commissioner to continue to develop understanding international human rights laws in her communication on climate change with States and the Council.

KATRINE THOMASEN, of International Service for Human Rights, said the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council continued to be among the most effective and accessible protection mechanisms and also played a vital role in the promotion of human rights. Individual States and the Council as a whole had often failed to treat the Special Procedures with the respect that they deserved. The Council should therefore strengthen its constructive engagement with the Procedures, respect the independence vested in them, and support them in the implementation of their monitoring and advisory functions. The Office should have a special focus in its field presences on the support and monitoring of national investigative efforts to ensure accountability for threats and attacks against human rights defenders. This year presented an important opportunity to strengthen the United Nations human rights system with the review of the Council approaching, and, hopefully, more momentum to make the treaty bodies more effective.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said the High Commissioner’s report had addressed the importance of protecting human rights defenders. In that regard, United Nations Watch called the High Commissioner’s attention to the appeal which had been launched today by 30 non-governmental organizations from several countries. United Nations Watch also commended the High Commissioner for speaking out against the grave violations which had been committed by Sri Lanka where an estimated 20,000 civilians had been killed. United Nations Watch supported the High Commissioner’s call for an independent and credible international investigation into these violations and noted with concern that Sri Lanka had been praised by this Council for its promotion and protection of all human rights. However, taking into account the devastating results for victims, why did the High Commissioner praise the Council’s Special Sessions as being “notable”? United Nations Watch also asked the High Commissioner whether she did not agree that the victims of many human rights abuses had been let down since the Council had only convened nine Special Sessions to scrutinize particular countries, six of which targeted one single country.

MOHAMED LEMINE OULD DADDE, Commissioner for Human Rights, Humanitarian Action and Relations with Civil Society of Mauritania, said the planet faced persistent denial of human rights despite international efforts. Numerous factors represented a serious threat to peace and security. Poverty and its effects and the exclusion of people, conflict and the degradation of the environment had all led to greater social imbalances with catastrophic consequences for human beings. Mauritania had committed itself to the path of modernization. It had taken steps to promote and protect human rights, as part of a move to bolster democracy, human rights and freedoms. That was why the fight against poverty had become a priority. By working with refugees in Senegal, it had been implementing social and economic programmes. Programmes to eradicate slavery had also become a Government priority. Mauritania was firmly committed to human rights. Numerous international missions had visited it, among them the Working Group on arbitrary detention. All of them had noted its political will to honour its international obligation to human rights. He concluded by thanking the President and Council Members for their work towards human rights throughout the world and for their support to those who fought resolutely for human dignity.

1Joint statement on behalf of: European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA-EUROPE); Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network; Akina Mama Wa Afrika; Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development; Associaçaõ Brasileira de Gays, Lesbicas e Transgêneros; Association for Women's Rights in Development; COC Netherlands; Frontline; International Alliance of Women; International Commission of Jurists; LBL Denmark; Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany; Swedish Federation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights; Unitarian Universalist Association; and World Organization against Torture.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/015E