HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATES OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND OF WORKING GROUP ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
The Human Rights Council this evening adopted nine texts, in which it extended the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice for three years.
Other texts related to requesting the Advisory Committee to prepare a report on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights; trafficking in persons, especially women and children, and protecting victims of trafficking and people at risk of trafficking, especially women and children in conflict and post-conflict situations; human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality; the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; the right to nationality and women’s equal nationality rights in law and in practice; human rights and international solidarity; and business and human rights - improving accountability and access to remedy.
Concerning the resolution on the elimination of discrimination against women, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice for a period of three years. The Council called upon States to adopt effective measures and to enact laws and policies to prevent and eliminate harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage or female genital mutilation and cutting.
In a resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a period of three years, and requested the Special Rapporteur to report annually on the implementation of the mandate to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly in accordance to their respective programmes of work.
In a decision, the Council requested the Advisory Committee to prepare a report on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights, the progress made in the establishment of such arrangements and their achievements in all regions of the world.
Concerning trafficking in persons, especially women and children, and protecting victims of trafficking and people at risk of trafficking, especially women and children in conflict and post-conflict situations, the Council called on all States to protect people, particularly women, children and other vulnerable groups in conflict affected areas, and people fleeing conflict, from all forms of trafficking in persons.
In a resolution on human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, the Council reaffirmed that the right to a nationality of every human person was a fundamental human right, and it called upon States to refrain from taking discriminatory measures and from enacting or maintaining legislation that would arbitrarily deprive persons of their nationality.
Concerning the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, the Council urged all actors to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and the promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
In a resolution on the right to a nationality and women’s equal nationality rights in law and in practice, the Council urged all States to promote gender equality in the acquisition, change, retention or conferral of nationality.
In a resolution on human rights and international solidarity, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, 13 against and 1 abstention, the Council requested the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity to continue to participate in relevant international fora and major events with a view to promoting the importance of international solidarity in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Concerning business and human rights, improving accountability and access to remedy, the Council requested the High Commissioner to convene two consultations to identify and analyse lessons learned, best practices, challenges and possibilities to improve the effectiveness of State-based non-judicial mechanisms that were relevant for the respect by business enterprises for human rights, including in a cross-border context.
Introducing draft resolutions and amendments were Philippines, Germany, Colombia, Russian Federation, Mexico, Iran, Cuba, and Norway.
Speaking in general comments were Netherlands on behalf of the European Union, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before or after the vote were Mexico, Switzerland, Panama, Slovenia, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council and other countries, Russian Federation, China, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Netherlands on behalf of the European Union.
The Council will next meet on Friday, 1 July at 9:30 a.m., to continue taking action on resolutions and decisions, before it closes its thirty-second session.
Action on Decision and Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development
Action on Decision on Regional Arrangements for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
In a decision (A/HRC/32/L.4) on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council requests the Advisory Committee to prepare a report on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights, in particular on the progress made in the establishment of regional and sub-regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights, and their achievements in all regions of the world; to identify ways to increase the role that regional arrangements play in promoting and protecting human rights; and to submit the report to the Human Rights Council before its thirty-ninth session.
Belgium, introducing draft resolution L.4, said that in this resolution, the Council would request the Advisory Committee to prepare a report on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights. That was in response to a request from the Advisory Committee itself. Regional mechanisms played an important role for the protection of human rights, and more cooperation was needed between regional and international human rights instruments. The report would allow a better understanding of the role of regional arrangements, and identify ways to move forward. Belgium hoped the text could be adopted by consensus.
The Council then adopted draft resolution L.4 without a vote.
Action on Resolution on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children: Protecting Victims of Trafficking and People at Risk of Trafficking, Especially Women and Children in Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations
In a resolution (A/HRC/C/L.6) on trafficking in persons, especially women and children: protecting victims of trafficking and people at risk of trafficking, especially women and children in conflict and post-conflict situations, adopted without a vote, the Council calls on all States to protect people, particularly women, children and other vulnerable groups in conflict affected areas, and people fleeing conflict, from all forms of trafficking in persons; identify measures to prevent trafficking for purposes of labour exploitation of persons fleeing conflict, including by establishing safe and regular channels of migration; and prevent and prosecute trafficking in persons in all its forms. The Council urges States to establish or strengthen national programs and to engage in bilateral, sub-regional, regional and international cooperation; and invites States and other interested parties to make further voluntary contributions to the United Nations Voluntary Trust Funds on Contemporary Forms of Slavery and for Victims of Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.
Philippines, introducing the draft resolution on behalf of Germany and Philippines, said that human trafficking required a concerted international response and regional actions. Trafficking in persons, especially of women and children, remained a serious problem as they underwent various kinds of hardships. Women and children, many from impoverished families, and those from areas hit by natural disasters, constituted the largest number of victims. The draft resolution called on States to intensify their efforts to address the demand for trafficking of women and girls, and to put in place preventive measures, such as legislative and punitive measures to deter traffickers and ensure their accountability. It urged States to support the draft resolution.
Germany, also introducing the draft resolution, said it would be glad if the draft resolution could be adopted by consensus.
The Council then adopted draft resolution L.6 without a vote.
Action on Resolution on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
In a resolution (A/HRC/C/L.7/Rev.1) on the elimination of discrimination against women, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice for a period of three years. The Council calls upon States to ensure women’s and girls’ equal access to accessible, affordable, available, appropriate, effective and high-quality health care and services; urges States to take steps to ensure that laws, policies and practices respect women’s equal right to decide autonomously in matters regarding their own lives and health, including their bodies; and urges States to adopt effective measures and to enact laws and policies to prevent and eliminate harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage or female genital mutilation and cutting. The Council also urges States to take all appropriate measures to ensure equal access for women with disabilities to health services that are gender sensitive, including health related rehabilitation.
Colombia, introducing the draft resolution, said that its main aim was to renew the mandate of the working group. The text focused on the areas of health, security and safety. Colombia was pleased to be able to present different positions voiced during the consultation process. In the preambular paragraph 14, it was noted that the word “armed” should be introduced before the word “conflict”. Hopes were expressed that the resolution could be adopted by consensus.
Russian Federation introduced amendments to the draft resolution, enumerated L.67 through L.70. The Russian Federation welcomed the resolution’s thematic focus on women and girls in the field of health. The first amendment, L.67, concerned removing a reference to the United Nations Security Council. The second amendment, L.68, was withdrawn. Regarding L.69, with reference to the text of the resolution, implementing it in practice would not be done by diplomats, but by experts in various fields, and thus the amendment was an endeavour to remove the difficult-to-understand concept of a human rights-based approach to the functioning of health systems, and replacing it with more understandable language. L.70 removed reference to something that did not exist in international human rights law, human rights defenders. The Russian Federation called for considering the amendments individually.
Mexico, speaking on behalf of the sponsors, said with regard to the proposed amendments L.67 to L.70 that the Council had to promote the human rights approach and support human rights defenders. None of the amendments referred to the substantive content of the draft resolution, but they sought to replace the language of the draft resolution which was internationally agreed language. Mexico rejected the amendments and asked for a separate vote on each one and asked Council Member States to vote against them.
L.68 was withdrawn by the sponsors.
Netherlands, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, welcomed efforts to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women that existed around the world. The European Union fully supported the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group and welcomed the focus of the draft resolution on health and safety. In order to achieve substantive equality in health, offering women and men the same services was not enough, as women and men had equal rights to make independent decisions about their reproductive and sexual health. It was important to reaffirm agreements on eliminating violence against women and recognize the work of human rights defenders in promoting the full respect and enjoyment of human rights of women.
Action on amendment L.67
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it rejected amendment L.67 and invited the Council to vote against it.
Switzerland, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it was firmly against amendment L.67 as the attainment of the highest level of mental health would be in jeopardy, and because women should not be discriminated against in conflict-resolution processes. For those reasons it asked that all Members of the Council vote against it.
The Council rejected amendment L.67 by a vote of 16 in favour, 20 against, and 11 abstentions.
Action on amendment L.69
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, rejected L.69 and asked members of the Council to vote no.
Panama, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, rejected L.69. The human rights-based approach was broadly used. To get rid of that reference would weaken the text. Panama urged all to vote against L.69.
The Council rejected the amendment by a vote of 16 in favour, 21 against, and 9 abstentions.
Action on amendment L.70
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, rejected amendment L.70 and appealed to all Members of the Council to vote against.
Slovenia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that deleting the words “human rights defenders” from the resolution would mean backtracking on internationally agreed terms. It was only right to recognize their important work without facing threats and abuses themselves. Slovenia would vote against the amendment.
The Council rejected amendment L.70 to draft resolution L.7/Rev.1 by a vote of 14 in favour, 23 against and 9 abstentions.
Action on draft resolution L.7/Rev.1 as orally revised
Paraguay, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stated that gender equality in law and practice and the rights of women and girls were pillars on which the country’s laws rested. Resolutions of the Council that focused on discrimination against women were crucial to ensure that women in Paraguay had a better life. That was why the Human Rights Council had to guard its mandate. The resolution before the Council did not achieve the fundamental aim which was eradicating discrimination against women. The Human Rights Council was imposing visions with which Paraguay could not agree; the Council had to avoid positions outside its mandate and promoting medical procedures was one of those. The Council should not promote controversial solutions, and abortion was not a method to be proposed by the Council, which rejected the death penalty and female genital mutilation.
Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council and other countries in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reaffirmed the commitment of those countries to reinforcing the human rights of women in society based on common values and beliefs enshrined in Islam and religious values. The countries did not want to divide the Council and would not break the consensus.
Russian Federation, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, regretted that the Council’s Member States did not support the amendments and said that Russia would not break the consensus. The sponsors of the draft document should accommodate different views next time, said Russia and requested that its position be reflected in the records of the meeting.
China, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, welcomed the draft resolution in principle, but was concerned about the mention of human rights defenders in the text because the definition of human rights defenders was not internationally agreed upon. All people should enjoy the same protection and no one should enjoy special rights just for waving the flag of human rights. China requested that its position be reflected in the records of the meeting.
Ecuador, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stated that it combatted all forms of discrimination, including of women. It did not support any attempt to securitize the human rights agenda and thus it dissociated itself from paragraph 4.
El Salvador, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, supported the importance of the fight against discrimination of women as a fundamental pillar of human rights. However, it would not support the full text as there were some limitations in connection with its laws.
The Council adopted draft resolution L.7/Rev.1 as orally revised without a vote.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality
In a resolution (A/HRC/C/L.8) on human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, adopted without a vote, the Council reaffirms that the right to a nationality of every human person is a fundamental human right; calls upon States to refrain from taking discriminatory measures and from enacting or maintaining legislation that would arbitrarily deprive persons of their nationality on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, including disability; and urges States to register every child’s birth, regardless of the child’s or the child’s parents’ nationality, statelessness or legal status, and to ensure that proof of identity is available to all children. The Council also encourages States to consider acceding to the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction on Statelessness if they have not already done so.
Russian Federation, introducing draft resolution L.8 on human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, expressed concern about massive and systematic violations of human rights in connection to arbitrary deprivation of nationality. That was a discriminatory practice, as a result of which people were stripped of their rights. Such practice led to generations of stateless people and the draft resolution aimed to rectify that situation, with particular attention to the situation of stateless children and the negative consequences of the arbitrary deprivation of nationality on the rights of children. Russia hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted with consensus and that the consolidated position of the international community would put an end to human rights violations as a result of that phenomenon.
Netherlands, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, took note of the draft resolution and the emphasis placed on children. The European Union recalled the importance of article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognized the right to nationality and said that it would have liked to see a more comprehensive text when addressing an issue as complex as arbitrary deprivation of nationality. The European Union supported the draft resolution and would join the consensus.
Action on Resolution on the Enhancement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights
In a resolution (A/HRC/C/L.11) on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council urges all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and the promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to seek to enhance dialogue with representatives from non-traditional donor countries with a view to broaden the donor base and to replenish the resources available to both the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance in the Implementation of the Universal Periodic Review and the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance; and requests all Member States and the United Nations system to foster complementarities among North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation aiming at the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights.
Iran, introducing the draft resolution, said that the resolution would highlight the importance of international cooperation in the field of human rights. It aimed at strengthening the capacity of Member States. Cooperation in the context of the draft resolution referred to a willingness to look beyond individual interest. The resolution also recognized that cultural diversity was a source of mutual enrichment for mankind. It was necessary to appreciate the constructive engagement of all, especially Italy on behalf of the European Union. It was hoped the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.
Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union Member States who were members of the Human Rights Council in an explanation of the vote before the vote, that the European Union was pleased to engage actively and constructively in the process. The European Union considered international cooperation an essential element of its external relations. Other principles must also be fully respected. International cooperation must be viewed in conjunction with the efforts of States. The European Union would have preferred preambular paragraph 12 to have been phrased in broader terms. The European Union believed that all human rights were indivisible and universal, and that it was the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The European Union would join consensus on L.11.
The Council then adopted the draft resolution without a vote.
Action on Resolution on the Right to a Nationality
In a resolution (A/HRC/C/L.12) on the right to a nationality: women’s equal nationality rights in law and in practice, adopted without a vote, the Council urges all States to refrain from enacting or maintaining discriminatory nationality legislation, with a view to avoiding statelessness and loss of nationality, preventing vulnerability to human rights violations and abuses, decreasing the risk of exploitation and abuse, and promoting gender equality in the acquisition, change, retention or conferral of nationality; also urges States to ensure that men and women have equal access to documents used to prove nationality, in particular passports, identity documents and birth, and where relevant, marriage certificates; and requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in coordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to organize, prior to the thirty-sixth session of the Human Rights Council, a half-day expert workshop to showcase best practices to promote women’s equal nationality rights in law and in practice, including the ability of women to confer their nationality on their spouse.
Mexico, introducing draft resolution L.12 on women’s equal nationality rights in law and practice, said that over 100 delegations had supported the draft resolution. The text highlighted the importance of eliminating discrimination against women in their ability to confer nationality to their spouses and children. This discrimination persisted in over 60 countries in every region of the world, and increased the risk of statelessness.
Saudi Arabia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait, confirmed the interest of those countries in the issue of nationality rights which was very important for individuals, and was the link between an individual and a State, and carried certain obligations and responsibilities. Acquiring nationality was one of the pillars in domestic legislation under very clear standards which were different from one country to next; the laws in the Gulf Cooperation Council were in line with international standards. The concept of nationality needed to be governed by States because States were the only parties which enjoyed sovereignty and the only ones which could confer or deprive an individual of nationality under international law. The countries were concerned about the possibility of interference in the internal affairs of a State and regretted that their proposals during the consultations regarding religious and cultural sensitivities were not taken on board.
Action on Resolution on the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
In a resolution (A/HRC/C/L.15) on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a period of three years; and requests the Special Rapporteur to report annually on the implementation of the mandate to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly in accordance to their respective programmes of work.
Cuba, introducing the resolution, said that the draft resolution extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. In March, during the thirty-first session, the Human Rights Council had adopted by consensus a substantive draft resolution on the same issue. It was therefore hoped that L.15 might be adopted unanimously by the Human Rights Council, thus confirming the Council’s unity on the right to food.
The Council then adopted the resolution without a vote.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and International Solidarity
In a resolution (A/HRC/C/L.16) on human rights and international solidarity, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, 13 against and 1 abstention, the Council requests the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity to continue to participate in relevant international fora and major events with a view to promoting the importance of international solidarity in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; also requests the Independent Expert to convene a meeting with experts from the five geographical regions to assist in finalizing the draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity, and requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist the Independent Expert in conducting a legal review of the draft declaration prior to its submission to the Human Rights Council in 2017.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (33): Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Togo, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.
Against (13): Albania, Belgium, France, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstentions (1): Mexico.
Cuba, introducing draft resolution L.16 on human rights and international solidarity, said that this text was adopted with an overwhelming majority year after year because international solidarity was a key instrument in supporting domestic efforts to promote human rights. It was a concept that, in addition to development and humanitarian assistance, technical assistance and other forms of cooperation, also included sustainability in international relations, and covered peaceful coexistence of all nations and equitable distribution of benefits. The text was in tune with those premises and Cuba urged the Independent Expert to continue the work on the draft declaration on international solidarity. Cuba said that the draft resolution was designed to spur international cooperation and also spur genuine dialogue on key issues of the day.
South Africa, speaking in a general comment, remained concerned about the consistent failure of international mechanisms to address key challenges such as climate change and said that international solidarity should be extended to ensure that billions were free from want and enjoyed all their rights, including the right to development. South Africa said that without international solidarity, the struggle of South African could have remained just a dream.
Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, confirmed the European Union’s commitment to international solidarity as an important moral principle and political commitment, but expressed concern about continuing conceptual doubts concerning the meaningful translation of the commitments to international solidarity into human rights standards. The proposals made by the European Union had not been taken into account by the sponsors and the draft text confirmed the draft declaration on international solidarity which clearly did not enjoy consensus in the Council. That was why the European Union could not support the draft resolution, called for a vote and said it would vote against.
The Council adopted draft resolution L.16 by a vote of 33 in favour, 13
against and one abstention.
Action on Resolution on Business and Human Rights – Improving Accountability and Access to Remedy
In a resolution (A/HRC/C/L.19) on business and human rights - improving accountability and access to remedy, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council requests the High Commissioner to convene two consultations involving representatives of States and other stakeholders, and to identify and analyse lessons learned, best practices, challenges and possibilities to improve the effectiveness of State-based non-judicial mechanisms that are relevant for the respect by business enterprises for human rights, including in a cross-border context, and to submit a report to be considered by the Council at its the thirty-fifth session.
Norway, introducing resolution L.19 on business and human rights, said that the international community could look at significant progress in many ways. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights had been integrated into a number of frameworks. However, concrete action by States was still needed. The core group was pleased that many States had participated in a high number of consultations. The report offered a base for other stakeholders, and resolution L.19 aimed to point to a range of challenges and urged States to implement the Guiding Principles. A number of oral revisions were made to preambular paragraphs and operative paragraphs to address the concerns of some States; that demonstrated the efforts made to find common ground for consensus. All Members of the Council were thanked for the constructive spirit in which negotiations were held.
Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, welcomed the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on improving accountability and access to remedies for human rights violations by businesses and said that this was owed to the victims and to human rights defenders who worked in the area. It was regrettable that the appropriate language on the role of human rights defenders had not been introduced, but the European Union was pleased to join the consensus after the introduction of oral amendments to the draft resolution.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC16/104E