HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on the elimination of discrimination against women.

Introducing the panel discussion, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kyung-Wha Kang said that discrimination against women persisted in both private and public spheres during times of peace as well as in conflict or transition periods. Millennium Development Goal Five on improving maternal health was the most off-track. Girls were dropping out of schools simply because of the lack of adequate sanitation facilities, affecting future educational and employment prospects. Women were the majority of the world’s farmers but limitations on equal rights to own land or inherit property were common. A step in the right direction to tackling the issue of gender inequality would be to put national legislation in line with international standards, particularly by eliminating all existing laws that discriminated against women.

Panellist Victoria Popescu, an expert member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, said that despite a positive trend indicating that ever more countries had eliminated discriminatory provisions from their legislation, women worldwide still faced numerous legal, institutional and cultural challenges and barriers in their access to justice. Ms. Popescu said that the Committee had not yet reached a common position on the establishment of the Human Rights Council thematic procedure focusing on laws and practices that discriminated against women.

Panellist Rashida Manjoo, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, said despite the existence of a normative framework, obstacles and challenges continued to exist in effectively addressing the human rights of women. The impact of seemingly neutral laws or the absence of equality and non-discrimination laws all played a role in entrenching discrimination faced by women. De facto and de jure discrimination was the norm in all parts of the world and the effectiveness of national mechanisms was an issue that needed to be considered. Law was an essential first step to eliminate discrimination, but it was only one tool to address the human rights of women.

Panellist Lee Waldorf, Human Rights Adviser, United Nations Development Fund for Women/United Nations Women, noted that there had been a marked improvement in the willingness of countries to take action on the recommendations made by the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in their reviews. The most serious challenge in creating a new mechanism to review national legal frameworks, and one that must be carefully avoided, would be a situation in which Member States became confused about the guidance issued by the human rights system. For this reason, a new mechanism would need to be clearly targeted at the gaps that currently existed in the guidance currently being provided.

Panellist Maria de los Angeles Corte Rios, General Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Women and Gender Equality, House of Representatives of Mexico, said there were enough instances in international law and instruments for the international community to commit to eliminating discrimination against women. She presented a check list that would assist with promulgating new legislation aiming at the elimination of discrimination against women and said that the Centre was developing a framework which would allow the assessment of whether laws were truly able to promote non-discrimination against women and equality between men and women.

Panellist Vitit Muntarbhorn, Professor of Law, welcomed the perspective that normatively, there was a trio of tools for women: the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Beijing Plan of Action, and the Millennium Development Goals. There had also been a rise of international and regional instruments for the protection of women, and law reforms at the national and local levels. With regard to key challenges, Mr. Muntarbhorn mentioned a slight disconnect between the trio of instruments in terms of implementation, better integration of women’s rights in the Millennium Development Goals, and the question of accession and reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Crises affecting women, including economic and climate change crises, needed to be addressed more effectively and there should be more women's participation in the political field.

Panellist Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, General Secretary of the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), said that she drew her reflections, analysis and recommendations from the daily experiences of the 25 million women and girls that comprised the YWCA movement. Her primary concern was not simply on the concept of discrimination but on dealing with everyday discrimination that happened in women’s lives. The most pressing question today was how to continue building norms on the rights of women and applying them to women on the ground. She concluded by saying that all women had dreams and a right to these dreams as enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and called on States to provide greater resources to this important mandate of the Human Rights Council.

During the interactive discussion, speakers welcomed the convening of the panel and said it brought the variety and diversity of views on discrimination against women before the law. While the Human Rights Council had a primary role to play in the elimination of discrimination against women, equality of women before the law could not happen without increased political will of States and active engagement of civil society. Despite progress made in recent decades to improve the situation of women around the world, a lot remained to be done to protect and promote their rights: discrimination remained the lot of many women. Women around the world were still victims of discrimination and inequality, including in property and inheritance, custody issues, and unequal access to education, among others. It was a global problem and even countries which had made significant achievements at the national level were still struggling in achieving equality between men and women. A number of speakers expressed their support for the proposal to establish the new thematic procedure of the Human Rights Council to deal with discrimination against women. The world needed one focused expert to deal with issues of discrimination against women before the law and to advance the elimination of gender-based legislative discrimination.

Speaking in the discussion were the representatives of Colombia, Mexico, European Union, Burkina Faso, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Austria, Costa Rica on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Algeria, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Finland, Chile, China, Syria on behalf of the Arab Group, Norway Saudi Arabia, Timor-Leste, Djibouti, Brazil on behalf of the Southern Common Market MERCOSUR, Brazil, India, Haiti, Canada, Libya, Lithuania, Australia, United States, Iran, Switzerland and Cuba.

Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Equality Now, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, and United Nations Watch.

This afternoon at 3 p.m., the Council will conclude the general debate under its agenda item on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention, and then hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. The Council will also listen to the introduction of the High Commissioner’s reports relating to indigenous issues and the report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and hold a general debate.

Opening Statements

Sihasak phuangketkoW, President of the Human Rights Council, said that in its resolution 12/17, the Human Rights Council had asked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a "thematic study on discrimination against women in law and practice and on how the issue was addressed throughout the United Nations human rights system, and in the same resolution, had decided to address the thematic study at its fifteenth session, and hold a half-day discussion on the issue in order to consider taking further possible action on discrimination against women.
KYUNG-WHA KANG, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that women’s rights and their promotion and protection were key priorities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Over 30 years had passed since the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And yet, the lack of sufficient progress with respect to implementing and enforcing women’s rights was indisputable. Discrimination persisted in both private and public spheres during times of peace as well as in conflict or transition periods. With regard to the implementation of Millennium Development Goals, MDG 5 on improving maternal health was the most off-track. There was a tendency to only act and react on the most visible forms of and symptoms of discrimination, which included rape and the slaying of women in conflict zones, domestic violence and killings and crimes committed in the name of honour. While this was a legitimate human reaction, the underlying parameters were paramount, from childhood onwards.

Girls were dropping out of schools simply because of the lack of adequate sanitation facilities, affecting future educational and employment prospects. Women were the majority of the world’s farmers but limitations on equal rights to own land or inherit property were common. Sadly, in developed and developing countries alike, equal pay for equal work still seemed a utopian aspiration. No other global human rights concern transcended national, cultural and religious boundaries in the same way as discrimination against women. A step in the right direction to tackling the issue of gender inequality would be to put national legislation in line with international standards, particularly by eliminating all existing laws that discriminated against women. It was for this reason that the High Commissioner for Human Rights had on several occasions strongly supported the idea of the Human Rights Council establishing a special mechanism dedicated to discriminatory laws. The Office of the High Commissioner had decide to prepare an addendum to the main report with a summary of national-level analyses that would be able to serve as a reference and inspiration for further progress. The Deputy High Commissioner concluded by saying that the role and added value of the Human Rights Council’s guidance on this topic should not be underestimated.

Statements by Panellists

VICTORIA POPESCU, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, said that eliminating discrimination against women from legislation and guaranteeing women’s access to justice on an equal footing with men was one of the basic objectives of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This topic also constituted a major priority for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women which was entrusted with monitoring the Convention. Ms. Popescu said that the concept of gender equality should go beyond treating all individuals in the same way since equal treatment in unequal situations could not eradicate injustice. The Committee therefore proposed a broader view of equality emerging from the correction of legal and situational imbalances and discriminations between men and women. In its constructive dialogues with the States Parties, the Committee stressed the need to assess the impact of laws, policies and action plans and to evaluate the progress achieved towards the realisation of women’s substantive equality with men. It recommended inter alia abolishment of discriminatory laws and practices, adoption of new legislation to address specific forms of discrimination in compliance with the Convention’s provisions and other measures.

The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women had constantly refined its working methods in order to fulfil its responsibilities in an effective manner, Ms. Popescu said. It introduced the follow-up procedure focusing on recommendations requesting immediate action in order to improve the slow pace of the implementation of the Convention at the national level. Despite a positive trend indicating that ever more countries had eliminated discriminatory provisions from their legislation, women worldwide still faced numerous challenges and barriers in their access to justice. Those were mainly barriers pertaining to the substance of the law, institutional obstacles and cultural challenges. Turning to cooperation with other treaty bodies, United Nations Women and the Human Rights Council Special Procedures, Ms. Popescu said that the Committee supported the ongoing human rights reform and had assumed the principle of systematic cross-referencing and incorporated in its work relevant information and recommendations from sister treaty bodies, the Special Rapporteurs and the Universal Periodic Reviews. Ms. Popescu concluded by saying that the Committee had not yet reached a common position on the establishment of the Human Rights Council thematic procedure focusing on laws and practices that discriminated against women.

RASHIDA MANJOO, Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences, said the Human Rights Council was commended for its continued efforts to incorporate into its work substantive issues related to the human rights of women, and the integration of the gender perspective through its work and programmes. Despite the existence of a normative framework, obstacles and challenges continued to exist in effectively addressing the human rights of women. The impact of seemingly neutral laws or the absence of equality and non-discrimination laws all played a role in entrenching discrimination faced by women. De facto and de jure discrimination was the norm in all parts of the world. The effectiveness of national mechanisms was an issue that needed to be considered. Women faced multiple forms of discrimination, and their intersectionality had different impacts on different groups of women, thus requiring a multi-pronged approach to address problems at all levels. Women were rights-holders, and not just a vulnerable group requiring protection, assistance and care. Formal equality was insufficient - focus needed to be shifted from a victim-oriented approach to one of empowerment.

Law was an essential first step to eliminate discrimination, but it was only one tool to address the human rights of women. Formal equality rights operated in socialised and cultural contexts that were deeply influenced by the cultural and social norms of daily life. Law was socially constructed, including human rights law, and it was a site of struggle and contestation - there was a need to use it as a transformative tool to achieve a holistic view of women's rights. The Human Rights Council had, in numerous different ways, addressed the issue of discrimination or inequality, whether through the Universal Periodic Review or resolutions or the integration of a gender perspective in the work of all mandate holders. One of the recommendations in the report was the creation of a gender focal point through the self-nomination of a group of States, and the Special Rapporteur was in favour of this. It was not problematic to have a discussion about duplication and the use of resources - it was important to have this discussion, as they were some problems faced by mandate holders in discharge of their duties.

LEE WALDORF, Human Rights Advisor, United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)/United Nations Women, said that UNIFEM’s technical and financial support to the efforts made by Member States to fulfil their gender equality commitments had for many years had a particular emphasis on the subject of legal reform. UNIFEM had been very strongly guided by human rights norms and standards in this regard, and especially by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in light of its near-universal ratification. CEDAW had been an invaluable reference, not only because of its widespread endorsement but also because of the very sound and holistic vision of the measures required to eliminate discrimination against women. Despite its value, under CEDAW’s substantive model, a more comprehensive assessment was required, including on the actual impact that laws were having on women and also whether there had been a failure to legislate in critical areas of concern. Viewed from this broad perspective, it was clear that there were a host of challenges posed by legal frameworks around the world.

At the same time, UNIFEM noted that a profound transformation was taking place. While the absolute numbers of discriminatory laws was disheartening, there was a significant trend towards successful reform that was hugely encouraging. The task of identifying which laws in a given country were discriminatory – both from a formal and a substantive perspective – was being performed quite well by the CEDAW Committee and there had been a marked improvement in the willingness of countries to take action on the recommendations made by the Committee in their reviews. However, the collective ability to effectively tap into experiences at the national level for concrete models of how laws should be reformed remained quite limited. The opportunity presented by the possibility of sharing between countries was huge but was still being acted on in an ad hoc fashion. The most serious challenge in creating a new mechanism to review national legal frameworks, and one that must be carefully avoided, would be a situation in which Member States became confused about the guidance issued by the human rights system, or even felt that they were receiving conflicting or contradictory messages. For this reason, a new mechanism would need to be clearly targeted at the gaps that currently existed and in the guidance currently being provided. In summary, UNIFEM believed that the difference between a mechanism that made an important contribution to this field of work and one that could potentially duplicate or confuse efforts would very much depend on the specifics of how the mandate was defined.

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES CORTE RIOS, General Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Women and Gender Equality, House of Representatives of Mexico, said there were enough instances in international law and instruments for the international community to commit to eliminating discrimination against women. It was important to point out that not all constitutions in federal states of Mexico recognised the principle of non-discrimination. Six variables were important in legislation dealing with discrimination against women. Domestic norms must first contain principles, such as the principle of equality or that of non-discrimination. In Mexico, 96 per cent of states had incorporated the principle of non-discrimination. The national legal framework for the right of women must include all aspects such as principles, or non-discriminatory language, and strategic issues such as age of marriage, nationality or citizenship discrimination, labour rights and others.

Regarding structural laws and issues, Ms. Angeles Corte said that non-discriminatory laws must be integrated with other laws and there must be a systemic approach to dealing with discrimination against women. She gave example of the law against pederasty, which had been adopted in Mexico earlier this year. It had cost 30 million pesos, but it would not be useful if it was not systemically integrated with other laws, such as the law on accountability, for example. Based on its own experience, Ms. Angeles Corte suggested a check list for the new legislation which contained: at least three parts in the principles; analysis of initiatives in the Congress and legal proceedings; inclusion of the use of budgets and allocation of the budgets as part of public policies. In order to do this, the Centre was developing a framework which would allow it not only to ask if the law had been implemented, but also if laws were truly able to promote non-discrimination against women and equality between men and women.

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Professor of Law, welcomed the perspective that normatively, and through targeted actions, there was a trio of tools for women: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Beijing Plan of Action, and the Millennium Development Goals. There were also many other tools, such as the Special Rapporteurs and the Universal Periodic Review, and Human Rights Council resolution 12/17. There had also been a rise of international and regional instruments for the protection of women, and law reforms at the national and local levels, domestic violence laws, new mechanisms, and creative programmes such as micro-credit for women, and a variety of non-governmental organizations and civil society active on this issue. With regard to key challenges, there was a slight disconnect between the trio of instruments in terms of implementation - they needed to inform each other much more on developments. As for the question of the situation of women beyond the formal sector and the question of political participation of women, these were some of the issues which needed to inform the trio of tools. Of the eight goals of the Millennium Development Goals, several touched upon women's rights and issues, in particular MDG Three, but women's rights needed to be better integrated into the MDGs as a whole.

With regard to the three human rights pillars of the United Nations system, there was still no accession by nearly 10 countries to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the question of reservations thereto was also an issue that still gave rise to discrepancies, including negative traditional and cultural practices. On that front, the Special Procedures were addressing more women's issues, but they needed to highlight more the need for law reform. The question of the role of the Security Council, including on conflict and political crisis was important, as the world was also faced by economic crisis and climate change and agricultural crises. More attention needed to be paid to women affected by natural disasters. There was still, regrettably, differentiation in terms of nationals and non-nationals with regard to human rights. In terms of formal equality, there had been much law reform, but substantive equality was still lacking on many fronts including resources and education, and there were still too few activities to bring men and boys on board. There was a need to aim for a more cohesive trio of tools, and, with regard to the Millennium Development Goals, there should be a more cohesive link between the eight, in a transversal manner, linking to women's rights. There should be a "three pillar plus" approach within the United Nations system. Crises affecting women, including economic and climate change crises, needed to be addressed more effectively. There should be more women's participation in the political field, and this should be encouraged through creative ways. There should be more women's participation in spiritual life and as spiritual leaders. There should be more male-female programming from an early age in sensitivity towards women's rights.

NYARADZAYI GUMBONZVANDA, General Secretary of the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), commended the Council and the panellists for their continued commitment to and investment in women’s human rights and the promotion of gender equality. She drew her reflections, analysis and recommendations from the daily experiences of the 25 million women and girls that comprised the YWCA movement. Her primary concern was not simply on the concept of discrimination but on dealing with everyday discrimination that happened in women’s lives. Looking at regional jurisprudence was indeed useful and offered an opportunity for States to examine the cultural challenges to the issue of discrimination.

The most pressing question today was how to continue building norms on the rights of women and how to apply them to women on the ground. The issue of discrimination had to be looked at from a constitutional vantage point as well. By looking at the legal measures taken to eliminate discrimination against women in different countries, States had tangible examples to follow. In this regard, Ms. Gumbonzvanda congratulated the Government of Kenya for adopting its new Constitution, which made explicit reference to the rights of women and was an example to neighbouring countries. The YWCA would continue to build a platform to discuss the intersection between culture, law, discrimination and human rights. All women had dreams and a right to these dreams as enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. All human beings were born free, both in dignity and in rights and she prayed that the Human Rights Council would contribute to the construction of a stronger mechanism to protect women’s rights. It was crucial to develop stronger tools to tackle this pressing issue and to create lasting change. She concluded by calling on States to provide greater resources to this important mandate of the Human Rights Council.

Discussion

In the ensuing interactive discussion, speakers said, among other things, that the Human Rights Council had a primary role to play in the elimination of discrimination against women. It was vital to ensure the promotion of women so as to eliminate poverty, hunger, and disease. The lack of equality before the law had had an impact on women's access to education, health, and many other rights, including political life, and increased vulnerability to discrimination and violence. The recommendations under the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in particular the need to establish a Special Procedure, re-established the need to harmonise international instruments and gradually eliminate discrimination in legislation and in practice. Equality was a fundamental right and should be a common value across the world, and was a fundamental United Nations value binding all Member States. It was vital to discuss how it was being implemented throughout the United Nations system.

Further, stronger, and more effective measures to address discrimination against women enshrined in the law were required, and should be done in line with the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the Beijing Plan of Action. Despite progress made in recent decades to improve the situation of women around the world, a lot remained to be done to protect and promote their rights: discrimination remained the lot of many women. Impetus for reform had to come from the national level - each State should follow its own path towards this ultimate goal towards ensuring women could play a full role in their own society. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women needed to be built on to ensure the improvement of the situation of women. Time and opportunity needed to be given to the new United Nations supra-body for women, UN Women, to be effective and fulfil its role before creating other mechanisms. Cooperation by all Governments was crucial in this regard and others.

Placing women and girls in an inferior position hurt all human rights. Genuine debates needed to start at the domestic level for societies to reflect upon the impact of their traditional and cultural practices. In order to turn agreements into practice, a lot remained to be done: the lengthy path to improve the situation of women had not yet come to an end. The United Nations human rights system had already made considerable efforts in order to improve and enhance women's equality. An important task of the United Nations system was to help Governments and organizations to eliminate discrimination against women. The Council must help to engender a culture of rights based on equality of opportunity. Improving the situation of women was vital to ensure a safer and more just world for all. Further efforts needed to be made to implement the Beijing Plan of Action and the Millennium Development Goals, and the Council should ensure the optimisation of these in order to enhance the situation of women further.

Speaking were Colombia, Mexico, European Union, Burkina Faso, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Austria, Costa Rica on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Algeria, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Finland, Chile, China, Syria on behalf of the Arab Group, Norway Saudi Arabia, Timor-Leste, and Djibouti. Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Equality Now, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, and United Nations Watch.

In the second round of discussion, speakers welcomed the convening of the panel and said it brought together the variety and diversity of views on discrimination of women before the law. Speakers were equally pleased that the Human Rights Council was fighting for the equal rights of women before the law, which was not a rule around the world. Also, countries welcomed the call of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to States to take further measures to close the gap in equality between men and women, including in laws and legislation. States could not become democratic without creating equal rights and opportunities for women and girls to fully enjoy there fundamental rights and freedoms. The equality of women before the law could not happen without the increased political will of States and active engagement of civil society. Elimination of all discrimination against women was a precondition to the full enjoyment of their human rights and could not be achieved without the equality of women in front of law.

The objectives of the Beijing Declaration of eliminating discrimination against women were still far from being achieved 15 years after they had been agreed upon. Women around the world were still victims of discrimination and inequality, including in property and inheritance, custody issues, and unequal access to education, among others. It was a global problem and even countries which had made significant achievements at the national level were still struggling to achieve equality between men and women. Women’s rights were human rights and human rights were women’s rights. A number of speakers expressed their support for the proposal to establish the new thematic procedure of the Human Rights Council to deal with discrimination against women. The world needed one focused expert to deal with issues of discrimination against women before the law and to advance the elimination of gender-based legislative discrimination. Speakers asked the panel members for their views on the value added of this new mechanism and its cooperation with the existing United Nations treaty bodies, in particular with the newly-created United Nations Women.

Speaking in the second round of questions and comments were Brazil on behalf of MERCOSUR, Brazil, India, Haiti, Canada, Libya, Lithuania, Australia, United States of America, Iran, Switzerland and Cuba.

Response from Panellists

VICTORIA POPESCU, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, thanked the delegations and the non-governmental organizations for their interventions. On the issue of a new mechanism on the issue of discrimination against women, she said that the value added would consist of a more systematic approach on discrimination, the provision of more tangible examples of best practices and also a much closer link with the field. Reservations continued to exist on the core articles of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which made it incredibly difficult to have a real impact on the promotion of women’s rights. Domestication of the Convention and adopting its recommendations into national law was crucial. In fact, this was why the Committee recently introduced a follow-up procedure to review the efforts made by Member States on the practical implementation of the Convention.

RASHIDA MANJOO, Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences, said value added depended on the terms of the mandate, the resources allocated to it , the appointment of a suitable candidate, and on accountability and implementation exercised by State and non-State actors as well as in the United Nations system broadly. The question was, of course, how to challenge global efforts at the local level, and the other challenge was to ensure that changes were empowering and transformative on the ground and made changes there to ensure that women's realities were changed. This entity could prove to be a valuable resource for the different mechanisms within the United Nations system. The sharing of best practices and technical cooperation was also important. In terms of how women's inequality before the law was a barrier to economic empowerment, it was this which often impeded women from moving out of poverty, as they lived in conditions of inequality and disempowerment.

LEE WALDORF, Human Rights Adviser, United Nations Development Fund for Women/United Nations Women, in her closing remarks said that the common theme emerging from the discussion was the concern by some governments that the new mechanism would target them. Ms. Waldorf said that attention needed to be paid to the exact formulation of the mandate of the new mechanism and that there was not one region or one country that would not be under the scrutiny by this new mechanism. There was thus no genuine reason for this concern. Regarding value added, she said that there were not enough people in the world working on the issue of discrimination against women before the law. The establishment of the new mandate would be of enormous value to the United Nations women and other United Nations human rights mechanisms, she concluded.

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES CORTE RIOS, General Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Women and Gender Equality, House of Representatives of Mexico, in her concluding remarks, said that it was important to analyse the different national legal systems and to recognise the challenges that this created. True substantive equality for women could be advanced through the creation of a United Nations Expert on Women, who could assist States in the adoption of legal safeguards for women and look at detailed indicators in areas that required further attention. This Expert could also provide support from a technical and legal viewpoint on the protection of women from discrimination. One could also examine the impact of legislation in each country and provide data on the progress that had been made in the field of non-discrimination. Comparing the legislative practices of different countries would also be valuable in terms of providing positive examples of best practices.

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Law Professor, said the word complementarity had been used a lot with regard to mechanisms, and this was relevant in particular with regard to checks and balances under the three pillars of the Human Rights Council. The Special Procedure was also basically a systematic focus on a particular issue or country, but the situation of women was a theme. The opportunity to identify lessons learned and have a dialogue around the Special Procedure was also important, as was the possibility of having country visits, a space for reform, and global coverage. With regard to empowerment and social development, that was very much contingent on political participation, and if things were left as they were now, there would be no gender parity for the next 40 years. On inequalities and economic opportunities, it was important to promote access through law to education, equitable equal wages, employment, decent work, social security, credit, resources and more. On the presence of law, it was correct that comments had concentrated on the need for law and more, as gender-responsive law, policies, programmes, monitoring, education and participation all needed to be included. There was a challenge with regard to transparency and focus in the United Nations system, as well as a need for review and redress, and the entry points such as the Council itself were instrumental for change as well as for redress.

NYARADZAYI GUMBONZVANDA, General Secretary of the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), in her concluding remarks, said that after today she would go back to women she was working with every day and tell them that the discussion on the elimination of discrimination against women by States was accelerating. All humans were born with rights and therefore the elimination of discrimination was a confirmation of this collective standard. Regarding the new mandate, she said it meant that the States needed to take a very bold step and support the knowledge and will to enable the States to do the very much needed reform to eliminate discrimination in law and in practice. This was the aim of the United Nations system as a whole, but the dedicated expert would be able to promote this long overdue agenda.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/099E