HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION, SUMMARY OR ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children. The Council observed a minute of silence in memory of Floribert Chebeya Bahizire, a human rights defender and President of the non-governmental organization “Voice of the Voiceless”, who was found dead yesterday in Kinshasa.

Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was an important indicator with respect to the protection of other rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. Concerning the right of access to information, the Special Rapporteur called upon all States to adopt legislation that gave effect to the public’s right to access to information. An important aspect of access to information was the availability of and access to historical records of past human rights violations. With regard to permissible limitations to the right to freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur reiterated that any restriction or limitation to the right to freedom of expression should be an exception to the rule and defamation laws should not be used to protect abstract or subjective notions. Another area of concern for the Special Rapporteur, which was examined in his report, was the protection of journalists and freedom of the press.

Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said his 2008 report had concluded that the international community would often need to insist that an international inquiry take place where particularly serious allegations were made of extrajudicial executions and where domestic practice had been unconvincing. To assert in such circumstances that matters should be left entirely to a domestic inquiry would generally be tantamount to an abdication on the part of the international community. Concerning the attack on the humanitarian flotilla off Gaza, there was a compelling need for an objective and impartial international investigation to ascertain the facts. There was also a need for an independent international inquiry in allegations that as many as 30,000 persons were killed in Sri Lanka in the closing months of the conflict. Concerning his thematic report on targeted killings, Mr. Alston said these posed a rapidly growing challenge to international rule of law. While over 40 States already had drone technology, the United States was the dominant user of drones to kill.

Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, said that trafficking in persons remained one of the fastest growing criminal activities in the world which resulted in serious breaches of human rights. To address this issue, better cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination was required, while regional and sub-regional mechanisms played a key role in providing a response that was both multilateral and sufficiently close to countries’ realities. Therefore this year’s report was dedicated to analyzing the role and value-added of regional and sub-regional cooperation mechanisms in the fight against trafficking in persons. The report provided an analysis of the current activities undertaken by them and highlighted good practices that promoted a human rights-based approach to combating human trafficking. Many challenges remained to be tackled, particularly the adoption of a human rights-based and victims centred anti-trafficking perspective.

Speaking as concerned countries on the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions were Brazil, Central African Republic, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Speaking as concerned countries on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons were Belarus, Japan and Poland.

In the interactive dialogue concerning the freedom of opinion and expression, speakers said that the right to freedom of opinion and expression played a vital role in the fight against terrorism, discrimination, xenophobia, and other forms of intolerance. This right was also important in guaranteeing human rights and supporting transparency in government and accountability by public officials. Many speakers agreed with Mr. La Rue that access to information and electronic media and communications were important components of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The need to protect journalists from intimidation and violence was also expressed. Several countries said that the right to freedom of opinion and expression was not absolute and that there were permissible limits and restrictions, especially in the area of defamation. Governments should protect this right, but should not allow it to be abused. Numerous speakers expressed concern over the digital divide, and the growing disparity between developed and developing countries in terms of access to electronic communications media.

Regarding the reports of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, many countries criticized the late release of the reports, as countries did not have sufficient time to review the materials, formulate responses to assertions contained within the report, and participate meaningfully in the interactive dialogue surrounding the delicate issues contained in the report. The Special Rapporteur was asked to share his views about the unsatisfactory level of follow-up activities of States to his country visits and the lack of response by States to his communications. In addition, one of the focuses of Mr. Alston’s work was on the relationship between sexual violence and killings. Concerning this particular issue, the Special Rapporteur was asked in what way increased international attention to this phenomenon could help the people and communities concerned to improve their situation and fight impunity.

Concerning the report on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, many speakers supported the emphasis on a victim-centred and human rights-based approach in the fight against human trafficking. Prosecution of traffickers in accordance with international human rights law and access to legal remedies, including appropriate compensation for victims, should be addressed as high priorities within the related policy mechanism. This problem had to be addressed on the state, regional, and international level and the help of civil society groups should be enlisted to provide a holistic approach to combating trafficking. The fight against smuggling and trafficking could not be separated from issues of migration and since human trafficking was a cross-border phenomenon, States of origin, transit and destination should work together to disrupt trafficking chains and punish traffickers. Delegations thanked the Special Rapporteur for her recommendations and outline of best practices, which could be used by States to move forward in their fight against human trafficking.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Belarus, Japan, Ecuador, European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Countries, Chile, Peru, Norway, Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, India, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Brazil, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, the United States, Sri Lanka, Uruguay, Viet Nam on behalf of the Association of South East Asian Nations, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, China, Bangladesh, Slovakia, Canada, Singapore, France, Australia, Austria, Russian Federation, Pakistan, Nepal, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, Switzerland, Indonesia, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Germany, Egypt, Algeria, Philippines, Azerbaijan and Malaysia.

Speaking in right of reply were Iraq, China and Tunisia.

On Friday, 4 June, the Council will meet at 9 a.m. to conclude its interactive dialogue with the three Special Rapporteurs, and then will hold a panel discussion on the protection of journalists in armed conflict.

Documentation

The Report of the Special Representative on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue (A/HRC/14/23) expands on four main themes: (a) general considerations on the freedom of opinion and expression; (b) freedom of expression for groups in need of particular attention and the role of freedom of expression in combating discrimination; (c) permissible restrictions and limitations on freedom of the expression; and (d) protection of journalists and freedom of the press.

Communications to and from Governments (A/HRC/14/23/Add.1) contains, on a country-by-country basis, summaries of general and individual allegations, as well as urgent appeals transmitted to Governments between 1 January 2009 and 19 March 2010, as well as replies received from Governments between 16 May 2009 and 14 May 2010. Most of the responses by States refer to cases raised by the Special Rapporteur during the period between January 2009 and March 2010.

Tenth anniversary joint declaration: Ten key challenges to freedom of expression in the next decade (A/HRC/14/23/Add.2) is a draft declaration that was issued in conjunction with the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Miklos Haraszti; the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Organization of American States, Catalina Botero; and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Faith Pansy Tlakula.

The Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston (A/HRC/14/24) analyses the activities and working methods of the mandate over the past six years, and identifies important issues for future research. Detailed addenda to this report address: (a) accountability for killings by police; (b) election-related killings; and (c) targeted killings.

Communications to and from Governments (A/HRC/14/24/Add.1) contains a comprehensive account of communications sent to Governments between 16 March 2009 and 15 March 2010, along with replies received between 1 May 2008 and 30 April 2010. It also contains responses received to communications that were sent in earlier years.

Mission to Colombia (8 -18 June 2009) (A/HRC/14/24/Add.2) focuses on the challenges faced by the Government of Colombia in providing peace, justice, security and economic opportunity to its citizens. Guerrilla forces continue to kill civilians, especially those caught in an impossible middle-ground between the guerrillas and State Armed Forces. Civilians are also killed by the guerrillas’ indiscriminate use of force and illegal use of landmines.

Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo (5-15 October 2009) (A/HRC/14/24.Add.3) details investigations focused on political killings in Kinshasa and Bas Congo; killings by rebels and the Congolese army in the Kivus and in Province Orientale; and deaths in prisons. The Special Rapporteur also investigated incidents of sexual violence leading to death; killings of accused “witches”; killings of human rights defenders and journalists; and vigilante killings.

Mission to Brazil (4-14 November 2007) (A/HRC/14/24.Add.4) analyses the progress made by Brazil in implementing recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, following his visit to the country from 4-14 November 2007 (A/HRC/11/2/Add.2). During his visit, the Special Rapporteur documented widespread killings by on-duty police, by off duty police participating in death squads and militias, killings in prisons, and pervasive impunity.

Mission to the Central African Republic (31 January-7 February 2008) (A/HRC/14/24.Add.5) analyses the progress made by the Central African Republic in implementing recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Although killings and abuses committed by Government forces and rebel units have declined significantly since the visit of the Special Rapporteur, the people of the Central African Republic remain at the mercy of other armed groups, including bandits, self-defense groups, the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Chadian National Army.

Study on Targeted Killings (A/HRC/14/24.Add.6) describes the new targeted killing policies and addresses the main legal issues that have arisen. In recent years, a few States have adopted policies that permit the use of targeted killings, including in the territories of other States. Such policies are often justified as a necessary and legitimate response to “terrorism” and “asymmetric warfare”, but have had the very problematic effect of blurring and expanding the boundaries of the applicable legal frameworks.

Election Related Violence and Killings (A/HRC/14/24.Add.7) examines the widespread, but under-studied, phenomenon of election-related killings, adopts a definition of election-related killings, surveys the limited academic research on election related violence, and provides an overview of the perpetrators, victims, timing, motive, methods, and effects of election killings. It also analyses the most significant types of election killings, considers the approach of election monitors, and concludes with specific recommendations.

Study on Police Oversight Mechanisms (A/HRC/14/24.Add.8) examines extrajudicial killings by the police, which are a pervasive problem around the world. One of the most important causes of continued police killings is impunity for past killings. As part of a system of accountability for addressing impunity, countries should consider creating external police oversight mechanisms, which can provide an important complement to internal police investigations, internal discipline, the criminal justice system, and legislative oversight. This report examines the obstacles to effective external oversight, and proposes guidelines for governments on the creation and operation of effective external mechanisms.

Mission to Albania (15-23 February 2010) (A/HRC/14/24.Add.9) details the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Albania, with a particular focus on blood feuds and domestic violence, as well as issues of with a particular accountability for such alleged killings.

The Report of the Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Joy Ngozi Ezeilo (A/HRC/14/32) is an analysis of current activities undertaken by regional and sub regional organizations in the fight against trafficking in persons, with the intention of highlighting good practices and initiatives that promote a human rights-based approach to combating human trafficking.

Communications to and from Governments (A/HRC/14/32/Add.1) sets out summaries of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2010. It also includes summaries of Government replies received from 1 January 2009 to 10 May 2010. Government replies received after 10 May 2010 will be included in the Special Rapporteur’s next communications report to the Human Rights Council.

Mission to Belarus (18-24 May 2009) (A/HRC/14/32/Add.2) explores the human rights aspects of trafficking in persons in Belarus, in the light of international human rights standards. Based on information gathered prior to and during this visit, the Special Rapporteur highlights a number of strong legislative and policy measures undertaken to address trafficking in persons. Lastly the Special Rapporteur offers a number of recommendations with a view to contributing to strengthening ongoing efforts to prevent and combat trafficking in persons and protect the rights of victims of trafficking.

Mission to Poland (24-29 May 2009) (A/HRC/14/32/Add.3) explores the human rights aspects of trafficking in persons in Poland, in the light of international human rights standards. Based on information gathered prior to and during this visit, the Special Rapporteur highlights a number of strong measures undertaken to address trafficking in persons, particularly as regards cooperation among various stakeholders. Lastly, the Special Rapporteur offers a number of recommendations with a view to contributing to strengthening ongoing efforts to combat trafficking in persons and to protect the rights of victims of trafficking.

Mission to Japan (12-17 July 2009) (A/HRC/14/32/Add.4) looks at the phenomenon of human trafficking in the country and assesses the impact of the measures taken by the Government and other stakeholders to prevent trafficking and protect the human rights of trafficked persons.

Preliminary Note on Mission to Egypt (A/HRC/14/32/Add.5) was unavailable.

Presentation of Reports

FRANK LA RUE, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, said that the Human Rights Council, through resolution 12/16, had asserted that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. The effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was also an important indicator with respect to the protection of other rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. Concerning the right of access to information, which was essential to ensuring that members of society were informed and could effectively participate in democratic decision-making processes, the Special Rapporteur called upon all States to adopt legislation that gave effect to the public’s right to access information, based on the principles outlined in paragraph 32 of his report. Additionally, an important aspect of access to information was the availability of and access to historical records of past human rights violations.

Mr. La Rue said the second issue addressed in his report was permissible limitations to the right to freedom of expression. In particular, the Special Rapporteur reiterated that any restriction or limitation to the right to freedom of expression should be an exception to the rule and defamation laws should not be used to protect abstract or subjective notions. The Special Rapporteur was deeply aware and concerned about the continuing existence in the world of stereotypes and prejudice against ethnic, racial, linguistic and religious groups, which were often exacerbated by misconceived national security and anti-terrorism policies.

Another area of concern for the Special Rapporteur, which was examined in his report, was the protection of journalists and freedom of the press. In particular, he was alarmed at the increase by 26 percent in the killing of journalists in 2009 as compared to the previous year. In addition, kidnappings of journalists and other media professionals were a continuing practice, which, in 2009, forced around 157 journalists to seek exile in other countries. Furthermore, there existed statistics that showed that the perpetrators of these offences had enjoyed total impunity in 94 per cent of all cases. The Special Rapporteur therefore called upon all States, and in particular the Philippines, Iraq, Pakistan, the Russian Federation and Mexico, who accounted for the greatest number of journalist deaths in descending order, to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the protection and safety of journalists.

Finally, Mr. La Rue provided some insight into his country visit to the Republic of Korea. In his view, the space for freedom of expression had diminished since the candlelight demonstrations of May 2008, primarily due to new and more restrictive interpretations and application of existing laws. Moreover, while the Republic of Korea had one of the highest levels of Internet connectivity in the region and in the world, there were worrying restrictions on the Internet, such as the prohibition of the spread of false information, cyber defamation, the use of the real-name identification system and the role of the Korea Communications Standards Commission. In his concluding statements, Mr. La Rue reiterated that fear of aggression and threats to national security should not be used by the Korean Government to limit the enjoyment of the right and the exercise of freedom of expression.

PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, said that in the fifteen minutes he was allotted he could not hope to do justice to the complexity of his reports, so he would confine his remarks to a few brief observations on specific issues and situations. Mr. Alston said his 2008 annual report addressed the issue of commissions of inquiry established by States to investigate grave instances of alleged extrajudicial executions. He had concluded that the international community would often need to insist that an international inquiry take place where particularly serious allegations were made of extrajudicial executions and where domestic practice had been unconvincing. To assert in such circumstances that matters should be left entirely to a domestic inquiry would generally be tantamount to an abdication on the part of the international community. Concerning the attack on the humanitarian flotilla off Gaza, there was a compelling need for an objective and impartial international investigation to ascertain the facts. There was also a need for an independent international inquiry in allegations that as many as 30,000 persons were killed in Sri Lanka in the closing months of the conflict.

The Special Rapporteur went on to discuss his thematic report on targeted killings, which he said posed a rapidly growing challenge to the international rule of law. While over 40 States already had drone technology, the United States was the dominant user of drones to kill. His report analyzed the complex rules which applied to all such killings. Drone killings in armed conflict might be fully legal, if used against combatants, or against civilians who directly participated in hostilities and in accordance with the standard rules governing targeting and accountability. Today, however, such killings were increasingly being used far from any battle zone. The other major problem with targeted killings was the issue of accountability. When targeted killings occurred, States had to demonstrate compliance with the law of armed conflict, which required weapons operators to be trained in international humanitarian law, to be able to demonstrate safeguards used in targeting, and to investigate and account for civilian casualties. The clearest challenge to this principle today came from the programme operated by the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency, which carried out targeted killings from drones. Hundreds of people had been killed as a result, including some innocent civilians.

Mr. Alston said there was an urgent need for clearer and more transparent discussion of these issues. The bottom line was that the rules being set today were those that would govern the conduct of many States tomorrow. In the absence of much clearer compliance on international law, grave damage would be done to the legal framework long in place to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions.

The Special Rapporteur briefly mentioned final and follow up reports on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, Brazil and the Central African Republic. Mr. Alston said that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, hundreds of people continued to be killed, displaced and gravely injured by armed rebel groups. Colombia continued to face many challenges, including false positives, in which security forces killed civilians and fraudulently claimed that they were killed in combat. Brazil had seen a number of positive recent developments, but the major problem of resistance killings continued to grow, bringing with it a deeply troubling level of police impunity. The Central African Republic was faced with a lack of funding resources and institutional capacity, and impunity for abuses committed remained the norm.

JOY NGOZI EZEILO, Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, said that trafficking in persons remained one of the fastest growing criminal activities in the world which resulted in serious breaches of human rights. To address this issue, better cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination was required, while regional and sub-regional mechanisms played a key role in providing a response that was both multilateral and sufficiently close to countries’ realities. Therefore this year’s report was dedicated to analyzing the role and value-added of regional and sub-regional cooperation mechanisms in the fight against trafficking in persons. The report provided an analysis of the current activities undertaken by them and highlighted good practices that promoted a human rights-based approach to combating human trafficking. A number of regional organizations had already embarked on regional cooperation activities and some had already incorporated a human rights-based approach in their normative and institutional framework. The report highlighted good practices, in terms of adoption of regional plans of action, establishment of effective monitoring bodies, and assistance provided to States for drafting their own national action plans and legislation. Many challenges remained to be tackled, particularly the adoption of a human rights-based and victims centred anti-trafficking perspective. The Special Rapporteur recommended that regional organizations develop standards that reflected a human rights-based approach to trafficking based on relevant international instruments, provide assistance to countries in operationalizing those standards and be active in monitoring, evaluating and collecting data on achievements and challenges in their regions.

Turning to country visits conducted during the period under review, the Special Rapporteur said that the insidious nature of human trafficking made it difficult to measure the true scope and practice in Belarus and other countries. Belarus had undertaken considerable legislative and policy efforts to combat the phenomenon and bring perpetrators to justice, and had put efforts in promoting a global plan of action for combating human trafficking. Employment opportunities at home must be strengthened, a law on domestic violence enacted urgently, and a holistic and rehabilitative system of assistance to the victims must be ensured. In Poland, the Special Rapporteur welcomed the clear recognition of the Government that the country had become a source, transit and destination country for victims of trafficking, which had been increasing over the last five years. A number of institutions had been established to combat the phenomenon and programmes were being implemented in cooperation with civil society. However, a definition of trafficking in relevant legislation was still lacking and needed to be adopted as soon as possible. Prevention must be strengthened and the root causes of trafficking, such as gender inequalities and domestic violence, must be tackled more vigorously.

The Special Rapporteur said that Japan was clearly a destination country for many victims of human trafficking, the vast majority of which was for purposes of prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation, although exploitation for labour remained hidden and under-reported. The efforts of the Government were only at their initial stage and much remained to be done to integrate a human rights-based approach to fighting trafficking, raise awareness in society and conduct training for law enforcement officials and judges. The Special Rapporteur was particularly concerned about Japan’s non-ratification of the Palermo Protocol and the unclear identification procedure which might lead to misidentification of victims of trafficking. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur recalled that placing the protection of human rights at the centre was essential to prevent and end human trafficking, together with increased cooperation and capacity of States to handle readmission and reintegration of the victims.

Statements by Concerned Countries

ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil), speaking as a concerned country, said making commitments within the United Nations human rights system entailed the obligation to watch over the good functioning of its mechanisms. The regular submission of information by States, as well as its due consideration by mandate holders, could be deemed the cornerstones for fully realising a country's human rights obligations. Brazil took note of the report's information on serious violations of fundamental rights by non-State actors, such as those inflicted by powerful criminal organizations upon dwellers of poor communities and upon members of police forces alike. Such insight brought a positive contribution for better understanding the many historical and structural specificities which came to the fore, when considering the protection of human rights at the domestic level. There was a need to strengthen police ombudsmen and to further improve and professionalise forensic procedures in Brazil. As for the need for increasing State awareness of executions committed by the police, it was worth mentioning actions such as the inclusion in a draft law currently under consideration by Congress of an obligation by States to submit data on police lethality to the Government. In renewing the Government's commitment to the Human Rights Council's thematic procedures, it should be highlighted that many of the recommendations addressed to Brazil by the Special Rapporteur had been incorporated into programmes and actions which had had a significant impact on the human rights situation on the ground. For Brazil, this fact itself was already a proof of the importance of a frank and balanced dialogue with the United Nations human rights mechanisms, whose work must be guided, above all, by a constructive stance and by an unyielding effort in the quest for roads of cooperation.

LEOPOLD ISMAEL SAMBA (Central African Republic), speaking as a concerned country, said the Central African Republic welcomed the report made by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Phillip Alston. They noted a couple of points he made regarding financing and impunity. The country needed financing to undertake capacity building and noted with satisfaction that the findings of the report were along the same lines as their own findings. The Central African Republic expressed the belief that the international community should invest more to allow them to deal with capacity building. Regarding impunity for crimes which senior army officers committed, the Central African Republic was a state of law with the separation of powers and should an executive meddle into the affairs of the judiciary this would lead to other problems. The judiciary was doing its job in the country. Gains had been made, for example they had voted to establish a national human rights commission, but they called on the international community for financing to help realize this goal. The Central African Republic was satisfied with the points made in the report and they thanked the Special Rapporteur for his objective report.

ADRIANA MEJIA HERNANDEZ (Colombia), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for the detailed investigation he had conducted with a view to understanding progress made in Colombia. The Government of Colombia continued to show its commitment to transparency and was opening up to international scrutiny in the area of human rights. Colombia appreciated the contribution of the international community and said it would take on board all recommendation made in a constructive manner. For decades Colombia had faced violence perpetrated by illegal armed groups that financed their criminal activities though drug trafficking. Democratic institutions and armed forces had made enormous efforts to combat those armed groups and prevent their terrorist acts, while fully respecting human rights. As the President himself had confirmed, the national Government was fully aware of the importance of the strict adherence to international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The Special Rapporteur recognised the effectiveness of the measures taken by the Government which had led to a drastic reduction in the number of complaints. The Government took note of recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur and reiterated its commitment to continue eradicating all human rights violations that could still happen in the country. The Government however did not share the statements made by the Special Rapporteur with regard to impunity and Colombia said that in fact a number of people were undergoing trials in Colombia. In April the President had reiterated that he would not hesitate to take drastic measures where there was need to do so. Colombia was surprised to see very little attention paid in the report to the extrajudicial executions perpetrated by the illegal armed groups FARC and ELN, although the politics of those groups to resort to the killing of civilians were recognised in the report.

SEBASTIEN MUTOMB MUJING (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a post-conflict State, was committed to peace and justice and had always had a healthy collaboration with the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. It was thanks to an official invitation from the Government that the Special Rapporteur visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the context of his mandate. The delegation was, however, surprised and indignant that the report issuing from this visit proved to be tendentious, politicised and unbalanced; it was full of insinuations and gratuitious, even irresponsible affirmations, and was not objective. In several places, the report insinuated that the Government collaborated with the rebel forces to pillage the national resources, as well as with the United Nations forces to not protect the civilian population. The report referred, contrary to the fundamental rules of the Human Rights Council, to the President of the Republic, linking him to non-proved, even caricatured events. The country's security services were described as mere death machines, enjoying impunity whilst they destroyed the population. The report disregarded the numerous efforts made by the Government to reform the judicial sector, including the penitentiary system, the security sector, the police, and even the army. In the context of these objections, the Democratic Republic of the Congo categorically rejected the form and content of the report of the Special Rapporteur.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), speaking as a concerned country, said Belarus was grateful to the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, for her report. Belarus welcomed the positive conclusions drawn in the report which attested to the fact that the Government of Belarus held dear the fight against human trafficking. During her visit, the Special Rapporteur had the opportunity to meet representatives of all the branches of the State in the President’s administration, heads of state bodies, including the Ministries of internal affairs, justice and foreign affairs, the Supreme Court and the state border committee. All of these meetings made it possible to form an overall picture of how the Government worked to combat trafficking. Belarus had taken note of the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations and they would serve as useful guidance in the fight against the modern slave trade. There were a number of recommendations however that did not take into account the special situation of the Government and the country’s cultural history. Belarus welcomed the Council’s willingness to provide assistance and consultative advice and wanted to confirm that they were interested in developing this cooperation by working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on specific projects in international technical assistance. The Government of Belarus would continue to work with non-governmental organizations, which they saw as partners, to fight human trafficking. At the same time, Belarus wanted to note that shifting the focus from criminalization of perpetrators to protection of victims would lead to more trafficking, so they felt an integrated approach was needed. They were also working to improve legislation to combat trafficking and they planned to adopt two new pieces of legislation this year based on the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan), speaking as a concerned country, welcomed the visit of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, and the opportunity for constructive dialogue and serious conversation about the successes and challenges of trafficking issues in Japan. Trafficking in persons was a serious crime involving a grave violation of human rights and human dignity, which had become a transnational threat that the international community must join together in addressing. As a direct result of the Special Rapporteur’s visit and the concrete recommendations she had provided, the Government of Japan had formulated the National Action Plan on human trafficking, based on which progress had been made in examining ratification of the Palermo Protocol, establishing a hotline, and in providing a wide range of training for law enforcement officials. Also, Japan achieved progress in offering international assistance in criminal investigations, and in further cracking down on employers and brokers of sexual and labour exploitation. The Government intended to continue working with other governments, and civil society to ensure cooperation with the international community to fight against human trafficking, and as of now it enjoyed continued cooperation and information sharing with 20 countries. The Japan-Thailand Joint Task Force on Counter Trafficking in Persons had been established, and Japan also intended to enrich its policy for combating human trafficking.

ANDRZEJ SADOS (Poland), speaking as a concerned country, said the visit of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons was a good opportunity for external evaluation of structural actions taken by the Government since 2003 through the implementation of national programmes to combat and prevent trafficking in human beings. Recommendations presented pointed out areas in which further actions had to be taken and cooperation between relevant actors enhanced. The issue of special concern for the Special Rapporteur was the problem of trafficking for forced labour and the capacity of labour inspectors to identify victims. Now, cases of human trafficking identified by labour inspectors were the subject of investigations carried out under the supervision of prosecutors by specialised units of the Border Guard. Seminars had been held to underline the problem of trafficking for forced labour, the violation of the rights of foreign workers, and creating a network of consular personnel trained in this field. Special leaflets addressed to those coming to Poland to work had been printed and distributed. Another very important recommendation was to establish an adequate and coordinated protection mechanism for child victims of trafficking. All children who were identified by law enforcement officials as victims of trafficking were granted the same forms of help as adults, namely medical and psycho-social support, legal assistance, safe shelter, and interpreters if needed. Unaccompanied minors were directed to care centres for minors and legal representatives were appointed for them by the custodial court. The Special Rapporteur was thanked for accepting the invitation of the Government, and for the effort she made to carefully examine national provisions and meet with all actors, both Governmental as well as non-governmental, engaged in the system of combating and preventing trafficking in human beings. This external evaluation had been used as a solid basis for further actions and improvements.

Interactive Debate

MAURICIO MONTALVO (Ecuador) thanked Frank La Rue, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, for his reports. No doubt his conclusions and recommendations contained important and highly constructive elements. Nonetheless, Ecuador wanted to refer to the cases circulated as an addendum. Ecuador noted with concern that none of the urgent appeals issued by the Special Rapporteur bore a direct correlation to the right to freedom of opinion and expression or Ecuadorian public authorities. Ecuador did not agree with his call for corrective measures for acts that had not been committed by the Government, but by non-governmental entities. The Government could not be held responsible for actions taken by third parties that had no relation to public institutions. The acts that the Special Rapporteur mentioned in his urgent appeals were under investigation within the judicial system of Ecuador, and while these incidents were unfortunate, they happened in countries all over the world ever day, not just in Ecuador.

JOELLE HIVONNET (European Union) said that Professor Alston had deepened and widened the work of his predecessors, in part by suggesting innovative and improved tools and working methods. Regarding Mr. La Rue’s report, the European Union highlighted its strong support for the freedom of expression and opinion. The European Union agreed with the Special Rapporteur that the right to freedom of opinion and expression had a vital role to play in the fight against terrorism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur if he had plans to work with others to enhance the safety and protection of journalists and, furthermore, if he could share his impressions with the Council on the situation of freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. In closing, the European Union highlighted the concerted efforts it had made in the fight against human trafficking and stated that a European Union Anti-Trafficking Coordinator would be nominated in order to ensure a better coordination of European Union actions in the field of human trafficking, including those in partnership with third countries.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression had reflected on some of the important aspects of this freedom, permissible limits and restrictions, and protection of journalists in armed conflict. Freedom of expression was not an absolute right - international human rights law provided for explicit limitations and restrictions to this right. Governments had the duty to protect this right, but also to ensure that it was not abused. There was a need to prioritise bridging the digital divide between developed and developing countries which would ensure greater equality and freedom. However, the Special Rapporteur still kept a biased and bi-focal view on the concept of defamation of religions, which was used to stigmatise certain groups, leading to violence against them, limiting not only their right to freedom of expression, but also other rights. Tolerance was a two-way street, and peaceful coexistence could not be ensured when some did not respect others’ views and beliefs. The Organization of the Islamic Conference sought for tolerance for all forms of religion and belief. Increased incidents of public prohibitions of religious expression were evidence of a growing trend. The analysis of the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking would be helpful in creating regional mechanisms which could be instrumental in sharing best practices, monitoring and collecting data, in order to remedy the situation. As for the reports of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the late submission of the reports was regretted, as it limited the ability of States to carefully review it, and thus participate meaningfully in the debate, and was against the spirit of cooperation.

RODRIGO DONOSO (Chile) said freedom of expression and opinion was not an absolute right, but restrictions must be compatible with international law and a democratic society; it was essential to remember that the right went hand in hand with special duties, and that it could be limited in exceptional circumstances. It was important to consider the limitations of freedom of expression, and consider the way that it tied in with defamation of religions. Efforts should be made to ensure that journalists were not the targets of acts of violence when carrying out their job, and States should do their utmost to guarantee the press access to areas of interest, and their lives and physical and moral integrity must be protected. It was very important that the global and regional systems for the protection of human rights worked together. There were ten challenges which were essential in terms of freedom of expression and basic human rights, and they were vital for the protection of democracy.

CARLOS SIBILLE RIVERA (Peru) thanked the mandate holders for their presentations. Peru wanted to address the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression. Peru shared Mr. La Rue’s interest in the right to access to information, the freedom of expression for groups that need special attention, and permissible restrictions and limitations on the freedom of expression. Access to information was indispensible for the function of democracy, as were transparency, and good governance. In a democratic system citizens exercised their rights through the freedom of expression and free access to information. For Peru, access to information was a priority and that was why the delegation wanted to ask the Special Rapporteur if he could focus on access to electronic communication and freedom of express online in his next report, and refer to how these media could contribute to better access to public information and could be used as mechanisms by citizens to monitor public authorities and their governments. In terms of groups requiring special attention, it was important to guarantee and ensure their access to information, especially those living in extreme poverty, minorities and indigenous peoples. Peru supported the Special Rapporteur’s call and appealed to the press and media for coverage that guaranteed a climate of respect for diversity and multiculturalism. The delegation said that if Mr. La Rue could include a compendium of best practices in his next report. That would also be helpful.

GEIR SJOBERG (Norway) said that Norway valued the analysis and recommendations of Ms. Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, which aimed to ensure that regional and sub-regional organizations took a victim-centred and human rights based approach in their efforts against trafficking. Norway was actively involved in nearly all the European organizations mentioned in the report and was strongly engaged in the work initiated by the Conference of Parties to the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its protocols. With respect to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Norway stated that the right of citizens to be informed of the activities of public officials and to have access to information would enable them to participate in political affairs and was thus vital in all democracies. More specifically, Norway asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the role of media in this regard as well as the importance of independent media. Finally, with respect to the protection of journalists, Norway asked the Special Rapporteur to suggest in more detail what could be done to ensure the protection of journalists working in zones of internal or international armed conflict.

HAMZA AHMED (Sudan), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said there were regional initiatives to backstop national efforts to combat the hateful phenomenon of trafficking in persons, and the report of the Special Rapporteur emphasised the Arab programme for capacity building in combating trafficking in persons, which was launched by the 2010 meeting in Doha, with final recommendations establishing an Arab Office. The Arab Group emphasised the need for States to adapt their national legislation to bring it into line with international provisions and to adopt laws outlawing trafficking in persons and to ensure prevention and promotion through capacity-building. There should be an international experience drawn, particularly from the United Nations. The recommendations from the meeting also stressed the need to involve civil society and bring in the private sector as a partner, and use modern technologies to combat the phenomenon, such as websites. The Gulf Cooperation Council was also developing guidelines and hoped to improve cooperation between Arab countries in combating this scourge, which should also be done by adopting laws and taking legislative action. Trafficking needed to be fought through international cooperation and the combined efforts of the international community. Arab countries were taking the necessary measures to combat this phenomenon, emphasising a rights-based approach, protection of victims, and prevention measures.

SANJEEV KUMAR SINGLA (India) said India thanked all the Special Procedures for their presentations, but would confine its remarks to the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions. While India appreciated the work of the Special Rapporteur, the delegation expressed its disappointment that the report was made available only two days ago and therefore they were unable to comment on it. India also noted that the report contained factual inaccuracies with regard to communications sent by the delegation, an issue India had formally raised with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. India had also raised this issue in the past and hoped that in the future the valuable work of Special Rapporteurs would be presented on time to allow for careful consideration by the Council.

KGOMOTSO DAPHNE RAHLAGA (South Africa) said that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was compatible with democracy and good governance. In this context, South Africa had taken positive measures to ensure that these constitutionally entrenched rights were practically enjoyed by all South Africans. However, they expressed concerns about the rise in incidents of incitement to racial, ethnic and religious hatred worldwide and asked the Special Rapporteur to share his views on this issue and, in particular, the role of the media in negative stereotyping and inciting racial, ethnic and religious hatred. In paragraph 38 of Mr. La Rue’s report, an interesting correlation was made between the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals. South Africa asked the Special Rapporteur to further clarify and elaborate on this point. South Africa also addressed the negative impact of the digital divide on many developing countries, especially in Africa.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) said the Government of the Republic of Korea was currently carrying out a careful review of the preliminary observations made by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression in his press statement following his visit to the country, and upon completion of this review, would present relevant information to the Special Rapporteur, hoping his final report would be drafted in a fair and balanced manner, giving due consideration to the information that the Republic of Korea would provide. As for the issues addressed by the Special Rapporteur, the delegation wished to stress the role of the media in combating discrimination, especially in the context of cultural diversity and multiculturalism. The media had the potential to cultivate respect and understanding between different cultural groups, thus generating positive social change; however, the media may hamper social cohesion by portraying different social and cultural communities in a negative light. For this reason, the social responsibility of the media could not be overemphasised. On trafficking in persons, regional entities would effectively benefit from the Special Rapporteur's report, as it allowed them to review their strategic directions and policies for combating trafficking in persons. The Republic of Korea fully supported the emphasis on a victim-centred and human rights-based approach in the fight against human trafficking. Prosecution of traffickers in accordance with international human rights law and access to legal remedies, including appropriate compensation for victims, should be addressed as high priorities within the related policy mechanism.

OTAVIO DRUMOND CANCADO TRINDADE (Brazil) said that Brazil had read the report of Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, with interest. Brazil agreed that this freedom, associated with the right to access to public information, was key to guaranteeing a transparent decision making process and democratic society. Several articles in Brazil’s Constitution guaranteed the freedom of opinion and expression and this freedom was at the heart of the country’s re-democratization process. It was through the strengthening of this fundamental human right that Brazil was able to overcome an authoritarian regime that lasted for almost twenty years. Brazil fully agreed that freedom of opinion and expression could be a relevant instrument in combating racism and several forms of discrimination, empowering vulnerable groups, and serving as a means to prevent and combat human rights violations to which such groups may be subject. With regards to possible restrictions or limitations of this freedom, it may be limited in exceptional cases, but these limitations should always be interpreted in conformity with international human rights law.

KATE JONES (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom agreed with Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue that the right to freedom of opinion and expression was an essential mechanism for the effective protection and promotion of other human rights and was an important tool for combating impunity and corruption. The United Kingdom recognized the limits set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and had developed legislation to combat expression that would incite hatred or violence. The United Kingdom also expressed its concern about the state of media freedom in all parts of the world, including attacks on journalists. The United Kingdom asked the Special Rapporteur to share his views on how States could best implement legislation on access to information as well as encouraging pluralism of ownership of and access to the media. With respect to Philip Alston’s report, the United Kingdom expressed appreciation for his hard work but recognized the limitations that the mandate had faced as a result of 70 per cent of countries failing to respond to or approve visit requests. The United Kingdom appealed to all United Nations members to cooperate fully with the mandate.

EUGENIA GUTIERREZ RUIZ (Costa Rica) said with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, her efforts to make a compendium of good practices and initiatives and a human rights-based approach to dealing with this phenomenon were welcome. Costa Rica understood that such an approach was part of a broader framework in the consideration of migration as a phenomenon, and as such had focused on comprehensive holistic views of migration. Costa Rica welcomed that the migration law in the country was now in force and ensured that victims of trafficking could now be seen as refugees. The Special Rapporteur highlighted a series of significant activities at regional and sub-regional level throughout the world, and she should explore other regional and sub-regional mechanisms that had not yet been considered, as this would expand the perspective offered on the topic. Costa Rica welcomed the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur and her information on best practices.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States) said the United States supported the affirmation that freedom of opinion and expression underpinned and protected other human rights. However, the United States also noted with concern the Special Rapporteur’s consideration of restrictions on freedom of expression. The United States remained strongly committed to the fight against ignorance, intolerance, hatred and discrimination, but it did not believe in banning speech as a means of combating these problems. The United States also disagreed with Mr. La Rue’s characterization of freedom of opinion and expression as collective rights – human rights applied to individuals, not groups. With regards to the report on extrajudicial killings, the United States said it was still reviewing the contents of the report and wished that it had received it in a timely fashion. Having said that, the United States made two points on targeted killings, including the assertion that the use of “drones” was no different from other commonly used weapons. Concerning the report on trafficking in persons, the delegation stressed that human trafficking was both a human rights issue and a law enforcement issue, and the two could not be separated. The United States also stressed the need for greater cooperation with civil society groups.

MOHAN PIERIS (Sri Lanka) expressed concerns with Mr. Alston’s earlier statement on Sri Lanka, which reeked with bias and was overbearing. The Government of Sri Lanka affirmed that it would not shy away from investigating any credible allegations of human rights violations that had taken place in the past. The recent establishment of the Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation was a clear testimony of this commitment. The Sri Lankan delegation found that Mr. Alston’s views on an international inquiry on Sri Lanka was regrettably counterproductive to the objectives of the Lessons Learnt Commission and was based on unsubstantiated, uncorroborated hearsay supplied by certain interested parties. It was equally regrettable that a person of Professor’s Alston’s calibre, who was expected to ensure impartiality and independence, sought to prejudge the outcome of the Commission before the mechanism had begun its work, by continuously calling for an independent international inquiry ad-nauseam.

LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE (Uruguay) said with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, Uruguay had participated actively in some initiatives in the sub-region, as the Special Rapporteur had pointed out, including the project to fight regional trafficking of adolescents and children for purposes of sexual exploitation. It was very important to have international cooperation to combat trafficking. Civil society played a key role, both in terms of prevention, and in terms of assistance provided to victims and their families. Uruguay undertook to take the Special Rapporteur's recommendations into account in its work, and in line with this commitment and the efforts undertaken in this regard, the Special Rapporteur would be visiting Uruguay next September. Uruguay aimed to put in place comprehensive public policies in this matter.

VU DUNG (Viet Nam), speaking on behalf of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), thanked the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, for her report and appreciated its focus on regional and sub-regional cooperation to promote a human rights-based approach to human trafficking. ASEAN Heads of State and Governments had concluded in 2004 the Declaration against Trafficking in Persons, through which they had expressed the urgent need for a comprehensive regional approach to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, and recognised that the immorality and inhumanity of this common concern elicited the need to strengthen legislative, law enforcement and judicial responses to ensure deterrent action was taken against persons involved. ASEAN was committed to undertake concerted efforts to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, particularly women and children, through the establishment of a regional focal network, adoption of measures to protect integrity of their respective passport and travel documents from fraud, and regular exchange of views and information sharing on relevant migratory flows. Viet Nam, on behalf of ASEAN, also highlighted activities undertaken through the Bali Process, which was a wider regional initiative in the Asian-Pacific region and said that ASEAN would continue to support the initiatives of the Philippines and other Member States of the Human Rights Council to promote a human rights-based approach to combating trafficking.

PETER HERTEL RASMUSSEN (Denmark) said Denmark agreed with the Special Rapporteur that freedom of expression should be viewed as an important means of combating all forms of racism and related discrimination. It was deplorable that freedom of opinion and expression was frequently subject to arbitrary limitations or restrictions by States seeking to silence dissent or criticism. This was especially true for journalists and the media who had increasingly become targets of violence and assassination. The right to freedom of expression gained added value when it was used to protect groups or minorities in need of particular attention. Denmark welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s view that it was conceptually incorrect to present the issue of defamation of religions as a conflict between the right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In closing, Denmark exclaimed that the concept of defamation of religion did not belong in a human rights discourse.

KHALID MOHAMMAD KARAKUTLY (Saudi Arabia) said with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, a number of points were contained in the report, in particular best practices and human rights initiatives, in which context the Special Rapporteur mentioned the efforts of the League of Arab States and the Gulf Cooperation Council with a view to developing justice systems in Arab countries to combat trafficking in persons, a very important issue. Saudi Arabia had enacted laws to combat trafficking in persons containing definitions of all existing practices, and penalising traffickers, in line with all international instruments to which the country was party. There was a permanent Committee under the human rights institution in order to consider trafficking practices and identify best solutions. Shelters had been set up for victims, as well as a complaints and communication centres. Although Saudi Arabia supported the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur, there was a need for concerted efforts by national and regional organizations in order to effectively combat this crime.

WANG LIXIN (China) took note of the reports of the Special Rapporteurs and said that the Chinese Government attached great importance to the protection of citizens’ right to freedom of expression. This right was enshrined in the Constitution. The Government actively supported the Internet, which was fully open to the public with over 400 million users. China expressed its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur on torture and said that the Chinese law expressly prohibited extraction of information by torture. China took note of the report of Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the case of Chine therein mentioned. China firmly fought against human trafficking and its laws contained clear criminal sanctions against those involved in trafficking in persons, particularly women and children. China was a very active player in regional organizations addressing the issue of human trafficking and appealed to the international community to increase information sharing and cooperation in this regard.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the mandate on freedom of opinion and expression was one of the most important Special Procedure mandates. This right was one that should be promoted and nurtured by all to the maximum extent possible. However, this freedom was not absolute or infinite and the permissible limitations of freedom of expression had been well articulated in article 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While countries may differ on the threshold level when the limitations should apply, the differences could be resolved through continued deliberation, engagement and dialogue. Bangladesh did not oppose constructive criticism of religion. The debate on religion and religious practices could be acceptable but not deliberate insult, stigmatisation or ridiculing. Addressing points raised in the report on human trafficking, Bangladesh stated that if States were serious about fighting smuggling and trafficking, they had to promote orderly migration. Since human trafficking was a cross-border phenomenon, Bangladesh added that States of origin, transit and destination should work together to disrupt trafficking chains and punish traffickers.

BRANISLAV LYSAK (Slovakia) said the role of regional and sub-regional organizations in the fight against human trafficking was extremely important, as they were a tool with lots of potential to provide effective response to the phenomenon. The report also contained a pool of inspiring conclusions and recommendations on which the Human Rights Council could base its actions. The establishment of regional monitoring bodies was a key element of the work of regional or sub-regional bodies, and the Special Rapporteur should elaborate on concrete ways of conducting truly efficient monitoring on the part of regional organizations, as well as what features should they have in order to provide an objective assessment and contribute to improvements. A number of regional mechanisms still failed to take victim-centred and human rights-based approaches - and the Special Rapporteur should explain what steps the Human Rights Council should take to positively influence the situation in this regard.

DOMINIQUE COLLINGE (Canada) said Canada thanked the three Special Rapporteurs. Concerning the Special Rapporteur on summary executions, Canada thanked him for his efforts in promoting his mandate and addressing the numerous issues relating to unlawful killings. Canada wanted to hear more about necessary actions to address the subject of sexual violence and unlawful killings in situations of conflict, concrete suggestions to ensure that States addressed the recommendations, and the priority actions to prevent unlawful killings and improve accountability. Canada thanked the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression and appreciated the attention paid to the challenges faced by particular groups in exercising their right to freedom of expression. Canada also appreciated the in-depth treatment of the issue of permissible limitations on freedom of expression and asked whether the Special Rapporteur would consider elaborating, in future reports, examples of national laws or practices that limited freedom of expression arbitrarily. Canada was alarmed by the increase in the number of journalists killed in the exercise of their profession and called upon States to ensure that all attacks on journalists were investigated promptly, and those found responsible were brought to justice in accordance with international fair trial standards. Canada asked what measures could be taken by the international community to combat the culture of impunity in relation to extrajudicial killings, kidnappings and assaults against journalists.

DEENA ABDUL-AZIZ BAJRAI (Singapore) addressed Special Rapporteur Philip Alston in response to sub-paragraph 51(d) in Section F of his report, where he asserted that “international law prohibits the mandatory imposition of the death penalty”. Singapore disagreed with this assertion, as there was nothing in international law that prohibited the mandatory imposition of the death penalty. Every society struck its own balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society. As such, each State had to make decision about its own criminal justice system and the legal sanctions to be imposed thereunder. This remained the sole sovereign right of each United Nations Member State.

MAX-OLIVIER GONNET (France) said France welcomed the in-depth work of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression on the nature of the limits which the freedom of expression could have put on it in the context of the respect of human rights. States that unduly limited the freedom of expression should review their legislation and national regulations in light of the elements highlighted by the Special Rapporteur in order to bring them into conformity with international human rights law. Freedom of expression played a vital role in combating all forms of discrimination, and France shared the Special Rapporteur's concern for the role of journalists world-wide, and not just in situations of conflict, and States should take the necessary steps to protect journalists and allow them and all press staff to carry out their activities. The additional protocol to the Palermo Protocol aimed at preventing, repressing and punishing trafficking was particularly relevant in the context of the fight against trafficking. This judicial network having been created, the implementation of operational tools and coherency of actions undertaken was a vital priority.

ANGELA ROBINSON (Australia) congratulated the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for the contribution that he had made during his mandate and thanked him for his report. Freedom of expression was an important indicator with respect to the protection of other human rights and fundamental freedoms. Australia thanked the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, for her comprehensive report on how regional processes were addressing trafficking in persons and noted that the activities under the Bali Process would continue to enhance a coordinated regional response to trafficking in persons. Australia would welcome further discussion with the Special Rapporteur on awareness-raising activities aimed at discouraging the demand for trafficking.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said Austria would concentrate its remarks and questions on the work of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. This mandate was surely one of the most difficult, given the sensitive issues involved and the necessity to sometimes confront Governments with shocking facts. Austria asked the Special Rapporteur to share his views about the unsatisfactory level of follow-up activities of States to his country visits. In addition, one of the focuses of Mr. Alston’s work was on the relationship between sexual violence and killings. Concerning this particular issue, Austria asked in what way could an increased international attention to this phenomenon help the people and communities concerned to improve their situation and fight impunity. And finally, Austria asked how Member States could use the tenth anniversary of Security Council Resolution 1325, which also dealt with sexual violence, to contribute to these efforts.

ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation had carefully examined the thematic studies, sought views of experts and relevant national bodies, and carried out a profound examination of the studies, and on that basis it raised questions and took positions on each report. The Special Rapporteur on summary executions seemed to be much less interested in substantive discussion with the States than they were with him, as evidenced by the thematic addenda only appearing on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website last night, when they had been scheduled to be discussed this morning. For objective reasons, a substantive dialogue on these unacceptably-late documents could not take place today. It was quite clear that under such unacceptable circumstances being imposed, there could be no discussion. This was clearly another example of a flagrant violation of the Code of Conduct by the Special Procedures, bordering on disrespect for the Member States of the Council, and such a practice needed to be ended decisively. Russia had carefully familarised itself with the content of the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, and his interpretation of restrictions was extremely debatable. The geographical scope of his report, among other elements, gave rise to serious concerns.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan) said that while appreciating the hard work of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Pakistan regretted the late submission of his reports, which had greatly affected the capacity of States to carefully prepare comments and remarks on some of the very delicate issues contained in the report. Pakistan reiterated the stated and unambiguous decision of the Government of Pakistan that drone attacks represented a violation of its sovereignty. Pakistan continued to pursue terrorism while fully respecting international human rights law. The security situation during the 2008 elections was mainly the spill-over effect from Pakistan’s fight against terrorism. The attacks that happened during the election times were meant to disrupt the daily lives of Pakistani people and the political process in the country. An independent commission of inquiry had been established to study the heinous crime, and the Government had carefully studied the findings of the United Nations commission.

HARI ODARI (Nepal) said Nepal concurred with the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons who placed emphasis on the need to promote a human rights-based approach to combating human trafficking. Nepal attached the utmost importance to combating human trafficking and had formulated anti-trafficking policies, laws, institutions and initiatives and had also undertaken actions on the ground. The Government had also set up Anti-Trafficking Task Forces at national, district and municipal levels. Women and Children Service Centres had been formed in 26 affected districts. Nepal mentioned that it had also studied the reports of the two Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and freedom of opinion and expression. Nepal asserted that it was a democratic country, based on the rule of law, and guaranteed the fundamental rights of its people. As such, the Government remained committed to following due legal course in addressing issues of human rights in the past.

LJUBICA PERIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said Bosnia and Herzegovina took note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially its conclusions and recommendations, and, being aware of the fact that it was only through cooperation, in particular regional and sub-regional, that this serious problem could be fought, the recommendations were very welcome. During the past decade, the issue of trafficking in persons had become an important challenge for Bosnia and Herzegovina and its institutions in charge of the issue. In the past few years, a new phenomenon had appeared - trafficking in women who were recruited with the aim of sexual exploitation in other parts of the country, while the number of identified foreign victims was in permanent decline, and the number of female citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina identified in the country had been constantly growing. This faced the law enforcement agencies with new challenges in identification and investigation of crimes in the field of human trafficking. Though Bosnia and Herzegovina had been combating trafficking in human beings in recent years and it was noticeable that the trend was still in gradual decrease in total number of identified victims, the problem was still present and was the subject of future serious activities of the bodies in charge, in particular those in charge of prevention.

NICOLAS FIERENS GEVAERT (Belgium) said Belgium regretted the fact that certain States continued to not respond to the request for invitations from the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. Belgium asked the Special Rapporteur what his intention was to change this worrisome situation. Belgium attached particular importance to the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression. Belgium welcomed the in-depth treatment of the issue of permissible limitations on freedom of expression and said that this attempt was particularly useful given that certain States wanted to introduce the notion of defamation of religions in international law. Belgium welcomed the affirmation of the Special Rapporteur that penal law could not be used to protect religions from defamation, as it was the law that aimed at protecting individuals and not groups of individuals or institutions. Belgium warmly thanked the Special Rapporteur on summary executions and welcomed his research on the question of the death penalty. Belgium appreciated his report on the opportunities for the abolishment of the death penalty, a theme which was its priority. Belgium wanted to hear more from the Special Rapporteur about the necessity to encourage the Special Procedures mandate holders to conduct periodic visits in order to ensure the follow up and implementation of recommendations.

NATALIE KOHLI (Switzerland) said with regard to the issue of freedom of opinion and expression and the media, in Switzerland’s view, the media played an important role in promoting plurality of opinions, cultural diversity, dialogue and tolerance. It was thus crucial that the media have the freedom to work in complete independence and security. Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur to what extent an interregional approach contributed to the promotion of freedom of expression on the ground. Moving to the issue of summary executions, Switzerland reaffirmed its commitment to the abolition of capital punishment. Switzerland was against the use of the death penalty in all cases. Nevertheless, in situations where it was still being used, strict restrictions surrounding its use were crucial and had to be gradually implemented. Finally, Switzerland expressed its concern regarding the lack of cooperation from certain Member States with Philip Alston and his mandate and the low rate of response to his communications.

DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said concerning the topic of freedom of opinion and expression, Indonesia fully endorsed the Special Rapporteur's reminder of the central role of freedom of opinion and expression as a fundamental right which guaranteed and facilitated the enjoyment of a number of other inalienable rights. From the outset, Indonesia had made untrammelled freedom of opinion expression a hallmark of the development of its democratic State and institutions. Indonesia noted the report's insistence on the key importance, in promoting a balanced and dynamic society, of giving women and minorities in need of particular attention the fullest access to information and a free voice. Indonesia was no less convinced of the key role of the press and media in spreading a culture of tolerance and understanding in open societies, free from racial or religious prejudice. The report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons was very informative, providing a comprehensive overview of the myriad regional organizations and mechanisms involved in the fight to combat trafficking in persons and there was much that all could learn from the report's conclusions and the best practices described therein. Still more needed to be done to raise awareness of and to emphasize the heinousness of the crime of trafficking in persons, and especially of women and children as its most vulnerable victims.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, thanked the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression for his report and reflections and noted that his recommendations could have a long-term impact on the freedom of opinion and expression. Freedom of opinion and expression should be deemed a key instrument for the promotion and protection of human rights and should be a veritable means of combating all forms of discrimination. Nigeria noted that the digital gap continued to increase disparity between developed and developing countries, and increased the lack of ability of some countries to realise the Millennium Development Goals. The African Group commended the tremendous work of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons and supported her recommendation which could lead to the establishment of a regional framework for combating trafficking in persons. The African Group deeply regretted the late submission of the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and its addendums and said that this situation was unacceptable. The addendums had a large range of legal ramifications and to that effect there should be a clear understanding of what annexes could be included and what their impact on the work of the Council was.

ANKE KONRAD (Germany) said that Germany attached great importance to the fostering of cooperation in the fight against trafficking on regional and sub-regional levels. Closer collaboration and coordination, the exchange of information and of good practice, and the development of training programmes or of mutual standards should be of vital importance to the fight against human trafficking. Regional cooperation, with a human rights based approach, would greatly benefit the well being and rights of victims and would help to ensure their reintegration into society. Germany noted that in the report on human trafficking the Special Rapporteur mentioned the necessity for dialogue with the tourism sector. In this regard, Germany asked the Special Rapporteur to provide examples of good practices with tourism sectors. Finally, Germany asked the Special Rapporteur her opinion on how to involve non-governmental organizations in the establishment of national coordination bodies as well as national plans of action.

MONA ELBAHTIMY (Egypt) said Egypt fully agreed with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression that although the right to freedom of expression was important for democracy and the exercise of other rights, this right was not absolute. International law recognized that the exercise of this right carried with it special duties and responsibilities and could be restricted in certain circumstances when it could be established that its exercise could jeopardise the enjoyment by any particular group of their fundamental rights and freedoms. This should be done in a clearly-defined and limited manner, and should always be proportionate to the desired objective. The Special Rapporteur did not give the required attention in his report to the issue of the misuse of freedom of expression to proliferate negative racial and religious stereotyping and incitement to racial and religious hatred, despite the fact that these scourges had taken new dimensions in the last few years, and must be condemned in the strongest terms. Egypt did not agree with the Special Rapporteur in his tackling of the issue of defamation, and considered that defamation of religions and religious discrimination/hatred/intolerance were two interconnected and interrelated issues. Egypt agreed with the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons that initiatives taken by regional mechanisms could bring added value to the fight against human trafficking, particularly through promoting a coordinated approach in this regard within a region where complementarities and synergies for joint work existed.

SELMA MALIKA HENDEL (Algeria) said that the report presented by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression noted that access to the mass media, particularly the electronic mass media, should be considered as a social, economic and cultural right. It was linked to the achievement of Millennium Development Goals and Algeria asked if the Special Rapporteur could be more specific in further explaining this link. The Special Rapporteur mentioned that the right to freedom of expression was also a collective right, which as such included a right to public expression of religious beliefs, and Algeria wanted to hear more about his analysis regarding stigmatisation of certain religious communities. Algeria said defamation of religions was a way to provoke certain social groups and to promote exclusion, hatred, violence and intolerance among them. The report of the Special Rapporteur on summary executions, which had several addendums, was made available only yesterday and this was not conducive to a constructive dialogue between States and the Special Rapporteur. Therefore Algeria was not in a position to comment on this report and reminded the Council that reports must be submitted to delegations at least 15 days before the discussion.

DENIS Y. LEPATAN (Philippines) said the Philippines believed that freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peaceful assembly were enshrined in the Constitution of the Philippines. The Philippines had a vibrant media and civil society and was proud of its tradition of people-powered democracy. The Government fully agreed that States had a duty to carry out investigations and bring to justice those responsible for violence against journalists. For this reason, the Filipino Government had swiftly and resolutely taken action against those responsible for the tragic incident that occurred in Maguindanao in November 2009. Both Mr. La Rue and Professor Alston had mentioned this incident in their reports. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had ordered urgent investigations and all relevant agencies of Government had been mobilized to ensure a complete and thorough investigation. At present, 56 murder charges had already been filed against the suspects, including the alleged masterminds who were being detained in the National Bureau of Investigation.

HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan recognized the right to freedom of opinion and expression as one of the main pillars of every democratic society, and recognized that freedom of opinion and expression contributed to the effective exercise of other human rights. All Governments should take the necessary steps to further protect and promote freedom of expression. The right was not, however, absolute, and carried with it special responsibilities. The Special Rapporteur touched upon the permissible restrictions and limitations on the right, and Azerbaijan agreed that these should be compatible with international human rights law. As the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference stipulated, freedom of opinion and expression could play a key role in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and all Governments should develop dialogue and tolerance between cultures in order to promote respectful relations and break down existing stereotypes and prejudices. However, Azerbaijan stressed that the concept of defamation of religions was intended to protect individuals, not religions. The report contained some remarks with regard to the role of the mass media, and Azerbaijan wished for follow-up information on his proposal for the development of training programmes for media personnel on freedom of expression, human rights, and multiculturalism.

ANIZAN SITI HAJAR ADNIN (Malaysia) said Malaysia condemned people smuggling and human trafficking and remained seriously committed to addressing the problem. Malaysia shared the concern of the international community of an urgent need to accelerate global efforts to stop this scourge. Concerted and integrated regional cooperation was extremely important. International and regional initiatives should continue to focus on the development of security issues within the countries of origin. There was an important need to address the factor of supply in the countries of origin, which required comprehensive action to address the root causes and contributing factors to trafficking of persons, such as poverty, underdevelopment and marginalisation. Malaysia had made significant efforts to curb human trafficking within its available sources and capacity and was taking appropriate measures to improve the existing mechanism in combating this heinous crime.

Right of Reply

MOHAMED ALI ALHAKIM (Iraq), speaking in a right of reply, said that everyone was well aware of the insecurity problems currently occurring in Iraq. Terrorist attacks remained frequent and targeted all Iraqis, making no discrimination between workers, men, women, children, military personnel etc. The journalists that had been kidnapped were victims of terrorism. In Iraq, there was freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, peaceful demonstration and freedom of the press. Moreover, Iraq did not have a censorship body. In Iraq, there were 150 publications, newspapers and magazines that were published regularly, and there were no restrictions on satellite television or the Internet. There were no restrictions on the enjoyment of all these rights in their laws. A draft law on the protection of journalists was set to be presented before the parliament with the view to be being adopted into law.

LIU KENFEI (China), speaking in a right of reply, said China was firmly opposed to any acts of secret detention, and nobody could be detained on the pure grounds of ethnicity, race, or belief. Everyone was equal before the law. There was also the judicial guarantee that when suspects were arrested they were entitled to a fair trial, as required by Chinese law. As for the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, chosen by the Dalai Lama, the delegation wanted to set the record straight. Since the eighteenth century, the whole process of searching for and identifying the reincarnation of the Panchen and Dalai Lamas had to be reported by the local government and the final approval rights lay with the central government. The Dalai Lama, in total disregard of historical practice and religious ritual, declared on his own his choice of the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. This was why it was totally illegal and null and void. The person he nominated was a normal young man, and he and his parents had repeatedly asked not to be disturbed and chose a normal life, and that choice should be respected. As for other individual cases, accusations by some non-governmental organizations on other matters were completely groundless.

ABDELWAHEB JEMAL (Tunisia), speaking in a right of reply, said freedom of opinion and expression was guaranteed by Article 8 of the Constitution and was a daily occurrence in all areas of life in Tunisia. There was freedom of the press which was pluralist and diversified and in political life where there were nine political parties. Journalists, in the exercise of their profession, only followed their conscience and were not persecuted, and they had a completely free hand in criticizing the Government. Every time the reform of the law governing the press was conducted, it was liberalized and went further in decriminalising certain acts. The achievement of the free press was still not total and final and Tunisia continued to work actively to this effect.