COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON MINORITY ISSUES

The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák. It also heard presentations of the report of the Forum on Minority Issues and the report of the twenty-first annual meeting of Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. The Council then held a general debate on its subsidiary bodies, continued in the afternoon.

Rita Izsák, Special Rapporteur on minority issues, said her annual report included a focus on the issues of hate speech and media incitement to hatred of minorities. The root causes lay beyond purely ethnic or religious differences and Governments, civil society and the international community had to be alert to early warning signs of hatred and violence. The media, including online and social media, was an essential component of modern societies but could be misused as a platform for discrimination, exclusion and incitement of hostility and violence against individuals and groups. On her visit to Nigeria, Ms. Izsák spoke about the root causes of discrimination against minorities and expressed grave concern about the escalation of attacks by Boko Haram. Ms. Izsák said her visit to Ukraine had taken place in the context of the political and social unrest that started in February 2014. She spoke about language problems faced by minority groups, and expressed concerns about Crimean Tatars.

Speaking as a concerned country, Nigeria said it had made extensive provisions to protect minority rights, and that there was no discrimination against any ethnic or political minorities in the Country. The fight against Boko Haram respected the international rules of engagement.

Ukraine, speaking as a concerned country, said minorities enjoyed a legislative framework which allowed them to realize their rights, including linguistic rights. It expressed concern about the growing number of human rights violations suffered by Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in occupied Crimea and asked the Special Rapporteur to focus her attention on that situation.

In the discussion, speakers said that negative stereotyping, discrimination and violence against minorities were the result of social mind-sets which were cultivated by people of influence, the media and opinion-makers. Legislation had to fully respect freedom of expression but at the same time it had to counter hate speech, including the increasing trend of hate speech on the Internet and social media. Preventive measures, such as the promotion of cultural diversity, inclusion, and tolerance ought to be enhanced and it was crucial that political leaders spoke out against violence. Concerns were also expressed about the use of the Internet and social media by extremist groups to spread hatred and incitement to violence.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on minority issues were the European Union, Algeria on behalf of the African Group, Mexico, Austria, Council of Europe, Estonia, Poland, Italy, United States, Greece, Libya, Pakistan, Armenia, Russia, Lithuania, Hungary, Switzerland, China, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Iraq, Turkey, Latvia, Myanmar and Iran.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Syriac Universal Alliance, Minority Rights Group, Human Rights House Foundation, Comision Mexicana de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, Asociacion Civil, AUA Americas Chapter, The International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, World Jewish Congress and Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

Ms. Izsák also introduced the report of the Forum on Minority Issues at its seventh session, which focused on preventing and addressing violence and atrocity crimes targeted against minorities. The Forum agreed that a strong legislative framework was necessary to prevent violence and atrocities, but States also needed to ensure they dedicated institutionalized attention to minority issues, monitored hate speech and provided basic safety and services to minority groups in the aftermath of a violence or conflict.

François Crépeau, Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, presented the report of the twenty-first annual meeting of Special Procedures, which focused on coordination among mandate holders and other United Nations entities. He spoke about thematic issues addressed including climate change, women’s rights and the Post 2015 Development Agenda. He highlighted challenges faced by the Special Procedures in fully carrying out their mandates, including acts of reprisals against people who cooperated with them and the lack of resources.

Joachim Rücker, President of the Human Rights Council, said Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council played a crucial role in the implementation and protection of human rights on the ground. He expressed concerns about acts of reprisals against persons cooperating with the Special Procedures, which was unacceptable.

In a general debate on Council’s subsidiary bodies, speakers expressed support for the work and the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Procedures, and noted their crucial role in capacity building and technical assistance. The growing number of mandates should not come at the expense of sustainability, constructive dialogue and impact on the ground, warned a speaker. Delegations condemned acts of reprisals. They included threats, travel bans, arbitrary detention, torture, and death. They stressed that the work carried out by the United Nations could never be achieved without the contribution of civil society.

Speaking during the general debate were Latvia on behalf of the European Union, Uruguay on behalf of a cross-regional group of States, Ireland, United States, Namibia, Cuba, Sierra Leone, China, India, South Africa, Venezuela, Tunisia, Council of Europe, Austria, Uruguay, Syria, Norway and Zimbabwe.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: International Service for Human Rights in a joint statement, United States Human Rights Network Inc, International Buddhist Relief Organization, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, World Barua Organization, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales in a joint statement, Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Inc, Liberation and the Alsalam Foundation.

The Human Rights Council is holding a full day of meetings today. Next, the Council will consider the outcomes of Universal Periodic Reviews of Italy, El Salvador, Bolivia, Fiji and San Marino. The general debate on Council’s subsidiary bodies and mechanisms would resume on Friday, 20 March.



Documentation

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák (A/HRC/28/64)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák - Mission to Ukraine (A/HRC/28/64/Add.1)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák - Mission to Nigeria (A/HRC/28/64/Add.2)

The Council has before it the recommendations of the Forum on Minority Issues at its seventh session: Preventing and addressing violence and atrocity crimes targeted against minorities (25 and 26 November 2014) (A/HRC/28/77)

The Council has before it a report on the twenty-first annual meeting of special rapporteurs/representatives, independent experts and working groups of the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, including updated information on the special procedures - note by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/28/41)

The Council has before it the final report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the issue of the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights (A/HRC/28/73)

The Council has before it the progress report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee of the research-based report containing recommendations on mechanism to assess the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights and to promote accountability (A/HRC/28/74)

The Council has before it the report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the study on the situation of human rights of persons living with albinism (A/HRC/28/75)

The Council has before it the final research-based report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on best practices and main challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations (A/HRC/28/76)

Presentation by the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues

RITA IZSÁK, United Nations Special Rapporteur on minority issues, presented her annual report which covered a range of activities and her two country visits to Nigeria and Ukraine, as well as a thematic study on hate speech and incitement to hatred against minorities in the media. There were manifold factors behind violence against minorities, and they included hate speech and incitement to hatred. Hatred was often constructed, fuelled, directed and maintained against individuals and communities who were different in ethnicity, language or religion from the dominant majority, often for political reasons or due to long-standing entrenched discrimination. Its root causes lay beyond ethnic or religious differences. Governments, civil society and the international community had to be alert to the early warning signs of hatred and violence. The Special Rapporteur stressed the importance of the media, an essential component of today’s societies, which could be misused as a platform for discrimination, exclusion and incitement to hostility and violence against particular individuals and groups. The report provided historical and present-day examples of how hate speech in the media could take different forms and made recommendations on how to counter hate speech.

On her country visit to Nigeria, home to more than 250 ethnic groups speaking an even greater number of languages, the Special Rapporteur emphasised that although the constitution guaranteed equality for all, the states she had visited, including Plateau and Kaduna, continued to face violent inter-communal clashes which had left thousands of victims over the past few years. She remained deeply concerned by Boko Haram and condemned the escalation of attacks perpetrated by that group in many locations, including killings, kidnappings and destruction of properties. The Special Rapporteur said her consultations with groups from all segments of society showed that the root causes were not solely religious or ethnic, but included dichotomy of indigenous settlers, competition for resources, poverty, deficits in good governance, impunity and polarizations of ethnic and religious characteristics.

The Special Rapporteur said her visit to Ukraine had taken place in the context of the political and social unrest that started in February 2014. She had visited Kiev, Uzhgorod, Odessa and Donetsk and met with representatives from the Armenian, Azerbaijani, Bulgarian, Crimean Tatar, Gagauzis, German, Greek, Hungarian, Moldovan, Polish, Roma, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Vietnamese and Jewish communities. One year ago the main concerns for minorities were primarily language and cultural rights, especially given the prospecting abolition of the 2012 Law on Principles of the State Language Policy. Although that initiative had been vetoed and the law was still in effect, the Special Rapporteur urged the Government to consult minorities when revising existing legislation or policy relating to them. The Special Rapporteur said she had not been granted access to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, but she had interviewed stakeholders who had left Crimea because of uncertainty, social and political pressure and fear for their security rights. They also voiced concerns about maintaining Ukrainian citizenship and passports.

Statements by Concerned Countries

Nigeria, speaking as a concerned country, commended the comprehensive report of the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues. It explained its commitment to the equality of all persons. Nigerian’s constitution contained extensive provisions to protect minority rights as well as several other policies and administrative measures. The constitution ensured the equitable distribution of political opportunities for all federating units. No ethnic or political minorities were subject to discrimination in Nigeria. Nigeria emphasized the challenges in its fight against Boko Haram and its respect for international rules of engagement.

Ukraine, speaking as a concerned country, said in visiting Ukraine the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues had cast light on the much-needed safeguarding of minority rights. The Special Rapporteur had described harmonious conditions for minorities and noted the legislative framework which allowed them to enjoy their rights, including linguistic rights. One year since the occupation of Crimea, Ukraine said it was concerned about the increasing number of violations of the rights of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatars; many had made the difficult decision to leave Crimea and find shelter in mainland Ukraine. More than 150 Crimean Tatars had been sentenced by the occupying power since the beginning of the occupation, said Ukraine and called upon the Special Rapporteur to continue paying attention to the situation of minority rights in occupied Crimea.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on minority issues

European Union said media could also be used as a platform for discrimination and exclusion. It was important to enhance preventive measures, such as promotion of cultural diversity and inclusion, tolerance, combating discrimination and including all sectors of the society in combating intolerance. The European Union asked about best practice in the establishment of institutions dedicated to minority issues, with the mandate to train, monitor and act on issues relevant to intercommoned relations.

Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said many Member States had national strategies and policies to protect minorities, and stressed the complexity of the matters concerning religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities. The African Group welcomed the United Nations network to counter racial discrimination and protect minorities. It stressed that hate speech spread through media and social networks was very dangerous; for some those had become the main channels for promoting hatred and intolerance.

Mexico referred to the relation between hate speech and the media and said it was important to focus on the positive developments. The rights to freedom of speech and those of minorities mutually reinforced each other. In Mexico, the media was used as an expression of literacy to promote cultural diversity. The Special Rapporteur was asked to comment on how to eradicate incitement of hatred in the media without countering freedom of expression. How could the media and internet be responsibly used to foster understanding instead of hatred?

Austria shared the view that legislation had to fully respect freedom of expression but at the same time counter hate speech, and Austria’s own legislation on that issue had recently been strengthened. There was an increasing trend of the use of hate speech on the internet and in social media, which paved the way for violence in communities. It was crucial that political leaders spoke out against violence. In view of recent acts of violence in Europe, Austria asked the Special Rapporteur what means could be used to implement effective preventive measures?

Council of Europe said it had several monitoring bodies in the field of minority protection and those issues were very high on its agenda. The European experience was that hate crimes remained under-reported due to a lack of victim assistance and negative perception of law enforcement by victims. A few years ago The Council of Europe youth sector launched the “ No Hate Speech Movement” which aimed to raise awareness of hate speech online. The Movement had an internet tool for users to report hate speech called “Hate Speech Watch.” It noted that a side event on that and related issues would take place on Friday, 20 March.

Estonia agreed with the Special Rapporteur that to tackle the issue of hate speech both legislative and non-legislative means had to be put in place and effectively implemented. Estonia was currently in the process of developing its legislation on the incitement of hatred, which was a rather controversial topic. Although criminal sanctions would be necessary in some cases, much of a problem could be solved by raising awareness on enriching cultural, historical and other kinds of diversity.

Poland shared the views of the Special Rapporteur with regard to the spread of hate messages in the media. The root causes of hate messages in the media could be attributed to wider socio-economic factors such as exclusion and discrimination. Poland was deeply concerned about how radical and terrorist groups used the Internet and social media to spread hatred and incitement to violence, especially against religious and ethnic minorities.

Italy stressed the importance of international legal frameworks and the wider socio-economic environment in the protection of minority rights. The Internet could be fertile ground for the spread of radical messages of hate, said Italy, agreeing that there was a need to use education and development of cultural understanding to address the problem. The systematic persecution of ethnic and religious minorities by ISIL and other extremist groups and their attempt to eradicate all traces of diversity in the Middle East was a source of deep concern.

United States said it shared the Special Rapporteur’s concerns. It recognized the important role that traditional and contemporary media played in shaping opinions and promoting social discourse. However, the United States disagreed with the Special Rapporteur’s focus on legislation to prohibit advocacy of racial or religious hatred which constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Rather, the United States believed more effective means included education initiatives, the promotion of diverse and pluralistic media, political and social leaders speaking out against intolerance, and encouragement of civil society initiatives to combat hate speech and intolerance.

Greece spoke about its anti-racism law which imposed sanctions for the crime of hate speech that included deprivation of liberty and fines. The National Council for Radio and Television could also impose administrative sanctions, it noted. A special legislation-drafting committee had been established by the Ministry of Justice to address the online use of hate speech. Aggravated cases such as the large amount of pro-Nazi propaganda on social media could not be put in the same chapter as other cases with a much more limited impact.

Libya assured the Council that its minority groups participated in the political life of the country on an equal footing with the rest of the population. Libya said it had recently adopted legislation which allowed schools to teach in different languages. It urged minority communities and diasporas to respect the laws of the countries they lived in. It called on non-governmental organizations not to support the hidden agenda of certain organizations who aimed to overthrow the authorities.

Pakistan said a clear threshold between free speech and hate speech was needed. Although domestic legislation was welcome, an international legal framework that served as a normative standard for States on the basis of which domestic law could be formulated and implemented, was required. In its absence, domestic laws lacked universality, uniformity, objectivity and adherence to international human rights norms. Pakistan called upon the international community to implement the Action Plan of Resolution 16/18 by formulating a legally-binding instrument in accordance with international law.

Armenia welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s commitment in countering hate speech and hate crimes. Vulnerable groups were often the main targets of hate and racist speech, which could lead even to genocide. In response to such crimes all segments of society should mobilize, in particular politicians. It was a worrying sign when hate speech was perpetrated by politicians and when hateful acts were glorified. Factors that influenced such hatred included unequal access to resources and poor governance.

Russia said that the growth of hate speech on religious and racist grounds worldwide was alarming. Internet use and the appearance of new and elusive forms of media were especially hard to control. Russia welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s examples on how to counter those. Unfortunately ethnic groups were deprived of their own media in their own languages, and that was a growing trend in democracies. Russia had positive legislative examples with regard to that. It asked the Special Rapporteur what the State’s role in countering hate speech on the internet should be, and how media literacy could be included on school curriculums.

Lithuania agreed that in the absence of adequate legal framework the media had become a platform for the spread of hate speech. Lithuania said it was deeply concerned that some countries, including in Europe, had turned to supporting extremist and radical ideas. The international community must stand firm. It said that strict adherence of States with their international obligations, including on the rights of minorities and freedom of expression, was required.

Hungary said it fully agreed with the conclusions of the report and its recommendations. There were 13 recognized minority groups living in Hungary, and more than 2.5 million Hungarians lived as minorities beyond the national borders. To effectively confront crimes of hate speech and incitement to violence, the cooperation and attention of the international community and civil society were required, as well as appropriate legislative frameworks.

Switzerland said that the report reflected the dilemma between the right to freedom of expression and the limitation of that right. The right to freedom of expression and prevention of incitement to hatred must reinforce each other. Legislation in all countries must respect that right and not allow abuse or misinterpretation of laws aiming to combat hate speech. Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur her view on a universally accepted definition of hate speech.

China said it supported the mobilization of the international community’s efforts to prevent hate speech, which led to hate crimes. The freedom of expression was not absolute and was subject to limitation by laws and ethics, said China. A person must note commit incitement to hatred, and that was the ethical norm of the international community. China maintained a relationship of equality, unity and harmony between minority groups and, in accordance with the law, punished the use of hate speech.

Organization of Islamic Conference highlighted unprecedented oppressive practices which had deprived people of nationality and citizenship in the past and continued today, and caused displacement. It condemned violence against the Muslim minority in Central Africa Republic as well as the violence perpetrated in Iraq, in particular against Christian minorities. The Organization for Islamic Cooperation also expressed concern about the Muslim minority in Myanmar, the Rohingya, who did not have citizenship.

Iraq said it supported the recommendations and conclusions of the Special Rapporteur’s report. Iraq stressed its deep concern about the barbaric attacks committed against Christians and other minority groups on its territory. The barbaric crimes against religious minorities had not only led to displacement, it amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity, said Iraq.

Turkey said it shared concerns about the growing risk of hate crimes brought by the phenomenon of hate speech. On a daily basis, bitter examples of hate speech and hate crimes were faced around the globe. Turkey stressed that the common struggle against racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia was more relevant than ever. Turkey spoke about its leading role in the preparation of Resolution 16/18 adopted by the Human Rights Council in 2011 and noted that a follow-up resolution on the issue would soon be presented to the Council.

Latvia said it continued to be alarmed by the situation of minorities in illegally annexed Crimea, especially Crimean Tatars. The Special Rapporteur said all journalists should be free to work, and Latvia was concerned by crackdowns on media freedom, particularly censorship and detention of media staff as the Crimean Tatar media was currently experiencing. Latvia asked the Special Rapporteur to assess developments in Crimea following her visit with regard to the situation of the Tatars and what remedies she recommended.

Myanmar rejected the citation in the report that it spread misinformation on social media platforms. In fact, only 1.3 per cent of Myanmar’s population had access to the internet, said the delegate. The Government did not tolerate any act or expression that led to hatred between religions or races. In Myanmar township-level interfaith friendship groups had been established, which amongst other actions prevented the spread of misinformation. Myanmar would not recognize the term “Rohingya” as it had never existed in its ethnic history.

Iran said it believed that the media had enormous potential to foster encouragement of diversity, but also could incite racism, hatred and violence. The abuse of the media by Da’esh, which used it to incite hatred, was a product of a perverse new form of nihilism in the new age. Any use of religion to incite violence had to be condemned. Iran also called on the Special Rapporteur to be more prudent in her use of the term ‘human rights activists’ to designate notorious individuals and groups.

Syriac Universal Alliance appealed to the Member States of the Council to pay due attention to the situation of the Aramean or Syriac people, who had suffered ethnic cleansing and genocide for centuries and were now fighting for survival. They were pressured to give up their distinct ethnic, religious, and linguistic identity. All States should recognize their existence and legal status.

Minority Rights Group said that negative stereotyping, discrimination and violence against minorities were not spontaneous or natural but were the result of mind-sets in parts of society which were cultivated by people of influence, media and other opinion-makers. Minorities were often under-represented in the media and their voices and views were seldom heard.

Human Rights House Foundation said that the whole of Ukraine had a history of harmonious inter-ethnic and inter-faith relations. Since February 2014, cultural, linguistic and educational rights of ethnic minorities and Tatar people in Crimea had been systematically violated by the self-proclaimed Crimean authorities and the leadership of Russia. The most vulnerable ethnic minorities in the occupied and annexed Crimea were Tatars and Ukrainians.

Comision Mexicana de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, Asociacion Civil, said that in the last nine years in Mexico, generalized and prolonged violence perpetrated by organized crime and armed forces, corruption, impunity, and human rights violations, had been the principal causes of forced internal displacement. The Mexican Government had to acknowledge that forced internal displacement was a phenomenon that required an objective quantification as well as effective measures in order to protect the people that had been forced to flee their homes.

AUA Americas Chapter said that on 17 July 2014 the so-called Islamic State had issued a statement that all Christians had to die. Consequently Mosul had been emptied of its Christians. For the first time in 1,600 years, mass had not been celebrated in Mosul. The genocide in Syria and Iraq was not only physical but cultural. It was clear that the Islamic State was set on ridding Iraq of its Assyrian minority. The Special Rapporteur was asked to exercise her right to conduct a country visit to Iraq, which had extended an invitation to all Special Rapporteurs.

The International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism emphasized the need to keep structural inequalities in mind when hate speech was involved. Special protection measures were needed for minority communities to counter hate speech, as a lack of protection could lead to retaliation against people who spoke up against hate speech. Because minority groups had multiple layers of diversity they could not easily unite themselves, and thus States and the international community had to take action.

World Jewish Congress spoke about the suicide bombing attack against a Christian community in Pakistan three days ago, in which 16 people were killed. It was one of numerous attacks against Christians and other minorities. The situation of Jewish communities in Europe was of grave concern. Up to one third of the Jewish population in nine European countries said they had experienced anti-Semitic violence.

Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel said 20 per cent of Israel’s population were Palestinians but because equality was not enshrined in the laws of Israel the community suffered discrimination in all aspects of public and private life. More than 50 laws in Israel undermined the rights of Palestinian citizens, and full citizenship was guaranteed only for Jewish people.

Concluding Remarks

RITA IZSÁK, Special Rapporteur on minority issues, in concluding remarks, warned about the long-term consequences of free speech without limits, saying that inflammatory speech was harmful to all, not only minority groups. There was a risk that mainstream social groups could become desensitized, as happened in Rwanda with the term ‘cockroaches’. The Special Rapporteur noted that many delegations had asked about the situation of Crimean Tatars. Ms. Izsák said she had been informed of many violations of their rights, and that some high-profile Tatars had faced prosecution and or even been expelled from the territory under politically-fabricated charges. Minority rights must be respected even in territorial disputes by the de facto authorities. It was important to provide short and long term support to people who had been displaced from Crimea, particularly to allow them to voluntarily return home. She also spoke about measures to counter Boko Haram in Nigeria, saying that inter-regional cooperation could minimize Boko Haram’s influence on young people. She emphasized the need to respect minority rights even in difficult situations.

To tackle the use of hate speech in the media Ms. Izsák said some Governments were creating online platforms where minorities could express their views. Members of minorities could not challenge hate speech without access to the best platforms and space that would allow their voices to be heard. It was important to identify opinion leaders in the community. On a similar note, Ms. Izsák said it was important to identify youth leaders and find ways of discouraging young people from following radical movements and being radicalized. Young people needed to be taught how to identify and avoid misleading information. The media played a key role in that. For example, cartoonists were a creative way of reaching young people. Ms. Izsák also said that blasphemy laws were often applied in a discriminatory manner. In terms of future plans, the Special Rapporteur said that she was working on a report on the global situation of Roma. The undertaking of country visits would depend on the support she received.

Presentation of the report of the Forum on Minority Issues

RITA IZSÁK, Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, presenting the report of the seventh session of the Forum on Minority Issues, said the thematic focus of the report was addressing violence and atrocity crimes targeted at minorities. The seventh session of the Forum reached an unprecedented level of attendance, with 570 participants from across the globe representing varied stakeholders; from States, academia, the United Nations system and civil society. The Forum discussed how violence against minorities could be committed both by State and non-State actors, and was often perpetrated with impunity. Factors that led to violence included the size of minority groups; their non-dominant social, economic and political position; their distinct characteristics such as ethnicity, culture, religion or language; and the suspicion, prejudice and stereotyping through which they were viewed by the majority group.

The Forum had considered four specific thematic areas in detail: understanding the root causes; the prevention prevention of violence and atrocity crimes; the particular challenges in responding to violence; and the implementation of minority rights in post-violence and post-conflict situations as part of efforts to build and ensure a stable and lasting peace. The Forum agreed that although a strong legislative framework was necessary to prevent violence and atrocities, it was not sufficient. Dedicated institutionalized attention to minority issues was also needed. States had to monitor hate speech and incitement to violence. A security response was essential to prevent imminent violence from breaking out. States had the primary responsibility to protect their populations from violence, and in the aftermath of any violence or conflict, to rapidly provide basic safety and services to minority groups. The role and importance of implementing minority rights in post-violence and post-conflict situations could not be more stressed more strongly, and The Forum identified positive practices in that respect. The vital role of civil society and minorities themselves in not only detecting the early signs of violence, but in working on post-conflict scenarios to prevent violence from reoccurring was also discussed.

Statement by the President of the Human Rights Council

JOACHIM RÜCKER, President of the Human Rights Council, said Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council constituted an important part of the work of the Council and played a crucial role for the implementation and protection of human rights on the ground. He was pleased to note the increase in standing invitations issued, and encouraged all countries to cooperate with Special Procedure mandate holders. He expressed concerns about acts of reprisals against persons cooperating with the Special Procedures. Such reprisals were unacceptable, said the President.

Statement by the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures

FRANCOIS CREPEAU, Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, presented the report of the twenty-first annual meeting of Special Procedures, which focused on coordination among mandate holders and other United Nations entities. A discussion with United Nations entities focused on climate change and resulted in the issuance of an open letter on this issue. Other thematic issues included women’s rights and the post 2015 development agenda. A recurring request from stakeholders was to have more information on the Special Procedures system and its achievements. It was therefore decided that more facts and figures be included in the report, which gave a comprehensive figure of what Special Procedures had done in 2014 in terms of country visits, communications, thematic reports, follow-up activities, joint actions, development of international standards, or advocacy. Special Procedures had increasingly worked jointly on thematic and country issues. The need for coordination among mandate holders was more and more acute.

Mr. Crépeau also underlined challenges faced by the Special Procedures. The first of them related to cooperation. Special Procedures indeed needed the full cooperation from all stakeholders to be able to fulfil their mandate. The growing number of States issuing standing invitations was therefore welcomed. 26 States had however not yet accepted any visits by mandate holders, and in some cases mandate holders had been targeted by unacceptable derogatory remarks and personal attacks. Accepting human rights criticism without hostility was a sign of maturity and mutually beneficial. Intimidation and acts of reprisals against those cooperating with Special Procedures was another critical challenge faced not only by the Special Procedures, but also by the whole United Nations system. The third challenge was ensuring follow-up on recommendations made by Special Procedures. The establishment of national coordinated mechanisms to follow-up implementation of human rights recommendations was encouraged. The lack of sufficient resources was finally pointed out by Mr. Crépeau, as it affected the Special Procedures’ capacity to implement their mandate.

General Debate

Latvia speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it was fully committed to the human rights system and supported the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ito noted the crucial role of capacity building and technical assistance provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and emphasized the paramount importance of mainstreaming human rights.

Uruguay, speaking in a cross-regional statement on behalf of a group of States, said they fully supported the work and independence of the Special Procedures. The growing number of mandates should not come at the expense of sustainability, constructive dialogue and impact on the ground. Uruguay said there was room for improvement in terms of the cooperation States showed to the Special Procedures. The importance of transparency and ensuring the provision of adequate and equitable funding were underscored.

Ireland welcomed the report of the annual meeting of Special Procedures and said country visits should be seen as part of a constructive dialogue in assisting States to meet their human rights obligations. Ireland condemned all acts of reprisals and stressed that the work carried out by different actors could never be achieved without the greater efforts of civil society, whose continued support and contributions were needed. The United Nations should address cases of reprisals with a more effective and coordinated approach.

United States said far too many Governments tried to suppress the voices of civil society at the Human Rights Council and more broadly in the United Nations. Acts of reprisals were intolerable. Such acts included threats, travel bans, arbitrary detention, torture, and sadly, death. Reprisals against families of civil society who sought to provide information had to be considered as attacks against the Human Rights Council itself. The United States was concerned that the Government of South Sudan had hindered the enjoyment of freedom of expression of people who cooperated with the United Nations.

Namibia said that it was actively working on the promotion on rights of minorities, most recently by launching its fourth National Development Plan. Though it had no specific law related to minority groups, their rights were ensured through other legislation. Namibia’s National Resettlement Policy targeted minorities, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. Traditional authorities, including members of the San group, were given various rights, and the appointment of traditional leaders was not sanctioned. Namibia acknowledged the need to promote and protect minority groups.

Cuba referred to the progress report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the negative repercussions on human rights of coercive unilateral measures. Sanctions could lead to a slowdown in world economic growth, said Cuba, and their objective was to destroy economies and destabilize governments. There was documented proof of the negative repercussions resulting from the blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States for over fifty years. With regard to the report on minorities, the term “responsibility to protect” should be avoided as it was a sensitive issue.

Sierra Leone stressed the importance of promoting close collaboration among mandate holders, facilitating cross-mandate coordination and the sharing of experiences. New mandates should not be created, and existing mandates should be reviewed to determine their continued relevance. Major challenges were the insufficiency of resources and reprisals faced by those who collaborate with Special Procedures.

China welcomed the report of the Advisory Committee on corruption. It agreed that fighting corruption would promote human rights. The crime of corruption had no limits and had a transnational character. To fight corruption, assistance via an international network was required. Likewise, special mechanisms on the promotion and protection of human rights had to be adopted. China had received several visits from Special Procedures and had extended invitations to other mandate holders.

India stressed how important it was that mandate holders remained truly independent, impartial and carried out tasks in accordance with the mandate given to them by the Council. India acknowledged that it was important that Special Procedures communicated their work to a wider audience through press releases and statements. It expressed concern with regard to the selection and appointment of Special Procedures saying that equitable geographic representation had to be ensured, as well as full transparency in funding.

South Africa spoke about civil society participation in the United Nations, saying the recommendations of the Cardoso Report on civil society participation in the United Nations system, which was commissioned by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, were not coherently implemented. It recalled the closing down of non-governmental organization forums on the margins of United Nations conferences in 2001 and said non-governmental organizations working on anti-racism issues had suffered severe lack of financial support from donors and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Venezuela expressed its support for the work of the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. It did not support the fact that topics such as “responsibility to protect” were brought up in the Council. Other, more important topics were welcomed, such as research on adverse effects of unilateral sanctions on human rights, which was an odious practice. Venezuela would support all initiatives by the Council to determine the scope and magnitude of the harm caused by unilateral coercive measures.

Tunisia, noted that the main challenge faced by the Special Procedures Division was lack of adequate financing, called on the Council to help in that respect. Over the last four years Tunisia had received 10 visits from mandate holders. It was thankful for their useful advice, in particular on legislative reform concerning the eradication of torture and judicial equality. Tunisia also welcomed their willingness to help in the follow-up on recommendations.

Council of Europe said that the protection of minority rights was its priority, and a number of instruments had been created to that end, such as the 1994 Framework Convention and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Several monitoring bodies watched over the implementation of those conventions and also served as early warning mechanisms. It expressed concern that reprisals against people cooperating with the Council of Europe had become more frequent.

Austria said given the worldwide rise of violence and atrocity crimes targeted at minorities, the theme of the seventh session of the Forum was timely. Prevention was key to create and maintain a safe and enabling environment for minorities, it said, emphasizing that everyone must be more alert to warning signs. Austria welcomed the inclusion of the Secretary-General’s Rights Up Front Initiative in the Forum’s recommendations and stressed the importance of taking full account of them.

Uruguay welcomed the Advisory Committee’s report on best practices in the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations. It welcomed the recognition of the need for full integration of human rights in those responses. Uruguay drew attention to the plight of migrants and refugees, who were not explicitly mentioned in the report. Uruguay also noted that it hoped to have fully overcome the problem of prison overcrowding by the end of the year.

Syria welcomed most of the Forum’s recommendations on combating hatred and violence and emphasized the need to bring terrorists who attacked members of minorities to justice. It stressed the need to prosecute States which did not clamp down on terrorist attacks on neighbouring countries, as was the case with the Al Nusra group, which Syria said was directly controlled by the Emir of Qatar. That question was at the very root of the problems faced by minorities in Syria.

Norway expressed deep concern about the many incidents of reprisals against individuals and organisations cooperating or seeking to cooperate with the United Nation human rights mechanisms. It also expressed concerns about the lack of gender balance among Special Procedure mandate holders and questioned the lack of gender balance in many of the working groups. There was no shortage of women candidates and the Council could do better, said Norway, calling on the Consultative Group to strengthen their focus on securing a gender balance.

Zimbabwe commented on the phenomenon of sexual violence against women with albinism in Zimbabwe. Cognisant of the vulnerable situation of people with albinism in general, the Government had declared the welfare of people with albinism to be a priority in its equality and non-discrimination policies and programmes. Measures taken included health education on how to prevent skin cancer and the provision of suitable clothing and optician services.

International Service for Human Rights, speaking in a joint statement with Conectas Direitos Humanos and Human Rights Watch, reminded the Council about Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli, who had been arbitrarily detained, denied medical care and subsequently died in custody a year ago. It recommended China ensured a full independent and impartial investigation into her death, make the outcome of the investigation public, and provide remedies to her family. States had to show resolve to stamp out reprisals.

The United States Hunan Rights Network, Inc, stated that the high-profile killings and profiling of black people in 2014 highlighted the need for urgent action to tackle racial discrimination in the United States. The killings of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice were only two examples out of many cases that went unseen. So far in 2015 at least seven transgender women of colour had been killed. Vulnerability to violence and discrimination was inextricably linked to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.

International Buddhist Relief Organization spoke about the discrimination faced by women born into the ‘untouchables class’ known as Dalit. Dalit women were subject to discrimination based on the intersection of cast and gender, which remained unrecognized in international fora. National crime statistics indicated that rape was most prevalent against Dalit women, who were denied legal aid and suffered from a very low conviction rate of two per cent.

Organization for Defending Victims of Violence said that the world was witnessing unprecedented atrocity crimes against minorities in the Middle East, especially those committed by IS against Yazidis, Christians, Shia, Sunnis and other groups. The United Nations should adopt more practical measures to protect vulnerable people from IS atrocities.

World Barua Organization called the Council’s attention to continuous atrocities committed in India against minorities. India did not recognize their citizenship or right to freedom of expression, and the minorities of north-east India were mistreated with impunity.

Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, speaking in a joint statement with Conectas Direitos Humanos, said that the public function of the Special Procedures Working Group required total independence of its members. The Human Rights Council must ensure that the members it selected to be in that working group were fully dedicated to human rights causes.

Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel agreed that violence against marginalized communities was a symptom of discrimination. It fully supported recommendations that States must ensure equality in order to prevent violence against minorities. Because of systemic inequality, Israeli security forces treated Palestinians less as citizens than as a security threat with limited human rights.

Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Inc stressed concern regarding the extensive number of cases of human rights violations in the Gulf region. Member States of the Human Rights Council should be held to a higher standard in respecting human rights at home, if they were to lead the international community in addressing abuses abroad.

Liberation said the Government of India denied the existence of its indigenous peoples and called on it to respect their rights. Indigenous peoples had been marginalized in political life and had to fight for the recognition of their rights, including the protection of their lands.

Alsalam Foundation drew the Council’s attention to human rights violations in Bahrain, which had refused to allow a visit from a Special Procedure since 2006. Mandate holders were unable to follow up on cases such as torture, arbitrary detention and intimidation of human rights defenders.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC15/037E