HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REVIEWS MANDATES ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES, INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY, USE OF MERCENARIES AND MINORITY ISSUES

The Human Rights Council this morning reviewed the mandates of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination and the Independent Expert on minority issues.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its general debate with Francis Deng, the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide.

France, in introducing the mandate on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said it was clear that the competence of the members of the Working Group would prove useful. There were immense needs under this mandate given the phenomenon of these crimes. Over the last five years, the Working Group had solved 2,702 cases, largely as a result of government cooperation and increased resources to the Working Group itself. It was also important to clear up a back-log of cases. The Working Group was an indispensable part of the United Nations’ human rights mechanisms. France proposed renewing the mandate of the Working Group for a further three years.

Darko Göttlicher, a member of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said that the Working Group was the first United Nations human rights thematic mechanism to be established with a universal mandate. The Working Group’s core mandate was humanitarian. It did not seek to establish responsibility or liability for disappearances but acted as a channel of communication between family members of victims of enforced disappearance and Governments. As such, the primary task of the Working Group was to assist families in determining the fate or whereabouts of their family members who were reportedly disappeared. The Working Group also had a preventative role.

Speaking about the mandate on enforced or involuntary disappearances were the delegations of Slovenia, the Russian Federation, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Morocco.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Amnesty International, Human Rights Advocates and International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, on behalf of severals NGOs1.

Cuba, introducing the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said that over the years, the mandate had been improved and had taken into account associated problems. The Independent Expert in his reports had tackled a whole range of issues dealing with pandemics, the right to health and building necessary infrastructures for development. The Independent Expert was seeking to help overcome the injustices of the world order. In light of globalization and global warming, international solidarity was becoming more and more important in order to ensure the survival of humanity. Cuba hoped that the mandate would be supported with immense majority.

Gay McDougall, Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, reading out the statement on behalf of Rudi Muhammad Ruzki, the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said the Commission had tasked the Independent Expert, whom it appointed for three years, to study the issue of international solidarity and human rights and to prepare a draft declaration on the rights of peoples to international solidarity. The Independent Expert also sought to establish the scope and applicability of the concept of international solidarity. In this regard, the three focus areas so far developed in the past two reports were: international cooperation, global response to natural disasters, diseases and agricultural pests, and third generation rights. Through the extension of this mandate, this would provide the Independent Expert with the opportunity to explore these three focus areas in greater depth.

Speaking about the mandate on human rights and international solidarity were the delegations of Slovenia, Bangladesh, Nicaragua, China and Malaysia.

Cuba, introducing the mandate of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, said the Working Group was indeed essential to addressing the issues surrounding the recruitment, use and financing of mercenaries. In explaining reasons for the renewal of this particular mandate, Cuba outlined the continued activities of mercenary interventions around the world. On the one hand, traditional mercenary groups continued to operate but the Working Group had also detected multi-service, multi-purpose mercenary groups being increasingly used and recruited by Governments. This went against international human rights and humanitarian law. As such, the mandate needed to be renewed to ensure that individuals the world over had the right to sovereignty and self-determination.

José Gómez del Prado, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, said that at the time of the Working Group’s establishment, the Council expanded the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on mercenaries to be covered instead by a five-person Working Group. One of the immediate effects of the Working Group’s work was the ratification of the International Convention on Mercenaries. Each of the members was able to promote in their own region the work of the Working Group. The Working Group had looked at issues related to the phenomenon of mercenaries and had drawn up procedures to allow groups to submit communications when they felt their rights were violated by private security firms.

Speaking about the mandate on the use of mercenaries were the delegations of Pakistan, Slovenia and the Russian Federation. The following non-governmental organization also took the floor: Human Rights Advocates.

Austria, in introducing the mandate of the Independent Expert on minority issues, said that minorities continued to face violence and poverty and were not allowed to take part in civil life in many countries around the world. Only the promotion of tolerance could achieve an improvement of the situation. The core element of the mandate was a promotion of the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The mandate requested the Independent Expert to identify best practices. The Independent Expert had applied a gender perspective to her work.

Gay McDougall, Independent Expert on minority issues, said that minority issues existed in all regions of the world and minorities everywhere continued to face serious violations of their rights. Ethnic or religious groups were reportedly the principal targets of approximately three quarters of the armed conflicts around the world. Minorities were disproportionately affected by extreme poverty and deliberate policies of economic exclusion. Where they had been subjected to long-term discrimination, they tended to also be marginalized in the political process. While other mechanisms addressed categories of violations that may be directed against individuals, the minority rights component of such violations was often neglected.

Speaking about the mandate on minority issues were the delegations of Pakistan, Slovenia, the Russian Federation, Brazil and Turkey.

The following non-governmental organization also took the floor: International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, which spoke in a joint statement.

A t the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its general debate with Francis Deng, the Special Advisor of the Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide. (Mr. Deng addressed the Council on 17 March. For further details, please see press release HRC/08/30.) Speaking in the general debate were the delegations of Sweden, Switzerland, Armenia, Kenya, Bangladesh, the Russian Federation, Belgium, Israel, Azerbaijan, Ethiopia and Slovenia.

Mr. Deng, in concluding remarks said that the mandate was still at the initial stage. An important part of his current work was to develop a strategy for the mandate, in consultation with a wide range of actors. On the prevention of genocide, he emphasized the role of States. Their role was to ensure that genocide did not happen on their territory and to protect their own citizens. The importance of the international community to help countries in this regard was also underlined.

The Council will hold a panel on Intercultural Dialogue on Human Rights when it meets at 3 p.m. this afternoon. When the Council meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 March, it will hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Procedures on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; African descent; and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Work.

General Debate on Presentation by Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide

JAN NORLANDER (Sweden), speaking on behalf of a number of countries, welcomed the extension of the post of the Special Adviser. Recalling a meeting which took place in Botswana in March, ministers discussed issues pertaining to democracy, human rights and development, three mutually dependent and reinforcing concepts. Sweden firmly believed that human rights and development were strongly linked to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the protection of the fundamental rights and human dignity of all persons. To work for full implementation of human rights and for increased development was also to work for the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities. Education, in particular human rights education and information, was key in this regard. It was necessary to identify early warning signals and to sensitive the population. It was the responsibility of every State to protect its citizens from genocide. The Special Adviser was asked what assistance from States and the international community was most important to his work and whether he foresaw cooperation between the Council and his Office.

JEANINE VOLKAN (Switzerland) said that genocide was traumatizing for the human conscience. Unfortunately, the Council could only react to genocide once crimes had been committed. The Human Rights Council needed to create a mechanism to deal with prevention of genocide. It was therefore urgent to implement useful instruments to prevent genocide and to support the work of the Special Advisor. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had to strengthen dialogue between States and institutions. One of the Office’s roles should be awareness raising on the issue of genocide. Combating impunity and preventing genocide were mutually interlinked and should be tackled simultaneously.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said that Armenia attached significant focus to the activities of the United Nations human rights machinery, which aimed at consolidating preventive measures against massive and serious violations, which if not halted could lead to genocide. This year was symbolic of increasing collective efforts to promote awareness of the fundamental document: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2004 had been a turning point within the United Nations system as it had admitted continuing failures of the international community to prevent and halt genocide. This crime continued to occur in our time. The appointment of the Special Adviser was most timely and significant. His mandate was a fundamental building block in the international system on prevention.

PHILIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) said Kenya agreed with the Special Adviser that humanity must remain united in its condemnation of the heinous crime of genocide and in its punishment of culprits. In this regard, early warning mechanisms were of utmost importance. The violence which took place in Kenya should serve as a reminder. The Government and people of Kenya had taken steps to stamp out the increasing violence. Prevention was not a one shot activity but a continuous process. The healing process in Kenya had just begun. Kenya appealed to the international community for its continued support in the implementation of the peace agreement reached in Kenya.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that genocide was the worse form of crime committed against humanity. What happened in Rwanda ten years ago would never be forgotten. The risk of genocide remained frighteningly real even today and urgent action needed to taken to address the root causes of genocide. The Council should recognize the early warning signs of genocide to avert potential disasters. Mechanisms should be put in place to assess prospective situations of genocide. Media rhetoric and propaganda should be considered with cultural sensitivity and full support should be given to the Special Advisor on the prevention of genocide.

VLADIMIR ZHEGLOV (Russian Federation) said that the Special Adviser had said that deprivation of citizenship was one of the signs of genocide. The Russian Federation would like the Special Adviser to go more into the details of this problem. Also, there was a tendency in Europe to glorify those who had collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War. The Special Adviser should give recommendations to the international community in order to prevent a revival of this ideology that had led to one of the worst genocides.

NATHALIE RONDEUX (Belgium) said that as indicated in the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the five-point action plan, the United Nations had a key role to play in the prevention of genocide through its human rights mechanisms. The United Nations often had first-hand information on situations which could lead to genocide. Strengthening cooperation between the human rights mechanisms and the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide would strengthen his work. The Special Adviser was asked for his analysis of his cooperation with the Committee on Genocide Prevention and also whether he had observed any good practices that could inspire his future work.

MEIRAN EIBN SHOHAN (Israel) said that Israel appreciated the work and mandate of the Special Adviser Francis Deng. In recent weeks, leaders of the Iranian State had called for the eradication of the State of Israel and the Zionist regime, referring to the country as a “cancerous tumour”. This was not the first time that the leader of Iran had threatened Israel with political and physical genocide. It was completely unjustified to threaten another Member State of the United Nations. How could the Special Advisor’s office anticipate potential situations of genocide and did he intend to address such inflammatory statements as the ones made by the Iranian regime?

MAMMAD TALIBOV (Azerbaijan) said that the mandate of the Special Adviser on the prevention of genocide was of special significance for Azerbaijan, as its population had been subjected to ethnic cleansing on several occasions in the last century. Azerbaijan realized how important it was for the international community to ensure that genocide was not repeated. Early warning and early action were crucial. Azerbaijan agreed that to prevent genocide in the future, one should not to be held back by legalistic arguments on whether a particular atrocity met the definition of genocide or not.

LULIT LENDIE (Ethiopia) said Ethiopia considered the prevention and prosecution of crimes of genocide as an important component of addressing the culture of impunity. That was why Ethiopia undertook Africa’s massive and hugely important domestic prosecution of crimes of genocide involving atrocities committed by Ethiopian government officials and military officers of the military which ruled in the country between 1974 and 1991. An important element of the prevention of these crimes lay in guaranteeing the rights of all groups to exercise their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without undue restriction. Ethiopia encouraged the Special Adviser to take such national experiences as part of global efforts in addressing the important current challenges.

DOMINIK FRELIH (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union was grateful for the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the five-point plan and on the Special Adviser’s activities on the prevention of genocide. In a few questions to the Special Adviser, the European Union wanted to know what role the United Nations human rights system should take to better compliment the work of the Special Adviser. Also, how was the thinking and methodology evolving to address specific country situations? How helpful had country visits been? Finally, what were the priority countries that were being considered for this mandate and, having recently returned from Kenya, was the Special Adviser satisfied with the participation and cooperation of Member States under review?

Concluding Remarks by the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide

FRANCIS DENG, Special Advisor of the Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide, in concluding remarks said that the mandate was still at the initial stage. An important part of his current work was to develop a strategy for the mandate, in consultation with a wide range of actors. Once this process would be completed he would submit the strategy to a broader circle. On the prevention of genocide, he emphasized the role of States. Their role was to ensure that genocide did not happen on their territory and to protect their own citizens. The importance of the international community to help countries in this regard was also underlined. He further noted that his mandate was collaborating very closely with all bodies of the United Nations system and particularly with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A presence there was being considered. His predecessor had identified a number of criteria, these were being further elaborated. He did not intend to carry out country visits only when there were concerns. He emphasized that cooperation with Governments was absolutely critical.

Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), in introducing the mandate of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances, at the onset of the statement proposed that the Human Rights Council assess and extend the mandate of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances. As part of the exercise, it was clear that the competence of the members of the Working Group would prove useful. It was recalled that in 1979 the first resolution on enforced and involuntary disappearances was adopted by the General Assembly and since then much work had been undertaken and pursued. In 1980 the Working Group was created. This was the very first thematic mechanism set up by the Commission on Human Rights. There were immense needs under this mandate given the phenomenon of these crimes. Quite often the victims of enforced and involuntary disappearances were tortured and their families remained unaware of their whereabouts and often never learned the truth.

Providing the scope of the phenomenon, there were some 41,000 cases which had not been cleared up yet in 78 countries worldwide. The Working Group received some 1,000 new communications in 2007 alone. Among other things, the Working Group was tasked with assisting families to help them discover what happened to their family members, and in this regard the cooperation of the State was absolutely crucial. Over the last five years, the Working Group had solved 2,702 cases, largely as a result of government cooperation and increased resources to the Working Group itself. It was also important to clear up a back-log of cases. The Working Group was also tasked with assisting States to implement the provisions set in the Declaration on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. It was hoped that the entry into force of the Declaration would lead to the resolution of many pending cases. The Working Group was an indispensable part of the United Nations’ human rights mechanisms. France proposed renewing the mandate of the Working Group for a further three years.

DARKO GOTTLICHER, member of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said that the Working Group was the first United Nations human rights thematic mechanism to be established with a universal mandate. It was created by the Commission on Human Rights on 29 February 1980 and was later elaborated in General Assembly resolution 47/113 on 18 December 1992. The Working Group’s core mandate was humanitarian. It did not seek to establish responsibility or liability for disappearances but acted as a channel of communication between family members of victims of enforced disappearance and Governments. As such, the primary task of the Working Group was to assist families in determining the fate or whereabouts of their family members who were reportedly disappeared.

The Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances also had a preventative role, by assisting States in overcoming obstacles to the realization of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This was done both while carrying out country visits and by providing advisory services, when requested.

Since its inception, the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances had transmitted a total of 51,763 individual cases to Governments. The number of cases under active consideration that had not yet been clarified, closed or discontinued stood at 41,257 in 78 States. In 2007 alone, the Working Group transmitted 629 new cases of enforced disappearances. In its almost thirty year history, the Working Group had clarified 10,437 cases, of which 2,702 were in the past five years.

The Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances had conducted 15 official visits in 13 different countries. The visits were intended to enhance the dialogue between the authorities most directly concerned, the families or their representatives and the Working Group, and to assist in the clarification of reported disappearances. Throughout its history, the Working Group had enjoyed continued cooperation with many States, which had yielded constructive results. Moreover, the Working Group was ready to assist any Government in preventing disappearances and in clarifying outstanding cases. The diverse membership of the Working Group, which included five Independent Experts from all regions of the world, allowed it to work collectively and to produce balanced results when addressing the complex situation of enforced disappearances around the world. In addition, the Working Group carried out a coherent application of its existing methods of work, in consonance with the provisions found in the Code of Conduct.

ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the issue of enforced disappearances was one of the most challenging ones. It had multiple factors. The Working Group was a necessary body. It had been one of the first mandates created by the Human Rights Commission. So far, despite recent progress, clarity had been made only in limited cases. It was deplorable that some Government did not provide enough information to the Working Group in order to carry out its work. It was hoped that the Working Group would be able to conduct its mandate with full efficiency and with the help of concerned States.

SERGEI CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation attached great significance to the work of the Council in combating violent and enforced disappearances and it was difficult to over-evaluate the work of the Working Group. The Russian Federation had always supported the work of the Working Group. Moreover, the Russian Federation supported the proposal of France to extend the mandate of the Group for a period of three years, but, at the same time, the activities of the Group had to be clarified with regard to its cooperation with States. There were a number of changes in the methods of work of the Working Group, as adopted in November last year. A number of innovations might change the exclusively humanitarian nature of the activities of the Working Group. The changes made referred to the fate or whereabouts of disappeared persons and these changes would not make it possible for the Working Group to actually get involved in the investigation of facts. The Council must be cognizant of these issues when considering the extension of the mandate.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that one issue of key importance was access to documentation in cases of enforced disappearance, with particular reference to the right to memory and truth. The issue of enforced disappearances remained one of the priority areas in Brazil. The Government therefore expressed its full support to the renewal of the mandate on enforced or involuntary disappearances.

EDUARDO CHIHUALIAF (Chile) said that the issue of enforced disappearances was an important one for Chile. The incumbent authorities were still clarifying the remaining cases that had not been brought before justice. The Convention against Enforced Disappearances was currently being considered by the Senate. The Working Group had shown that the use of enforced disappearances continued in several parts of the world, thus the mandate was fully supported.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances was of great symbolic importance for Argentina. The Working Group was established 30 years ago on the basis of Argentina’s cases of disappearances. Argentina consistently supported the work of the Special Procedures and was firmly committed to working with the Working Group and fully supported its extension. Argentina had accepted the invitation of the Working Group to meet with them in Argentina this year. Argentina had ratified the Convention on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances and it was hoped that it would enter into force as soon as possible.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) extended Morocco’s full commitment to the work of the Working Group. Reminding the Council that Morocco was one of the first signatories to the Declaration on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Morocco said it encouraged the work of the Working Group and its last report to the Human Rights Council. Following this positive evaluation, Morocco fully supported the renewal of the Working Group’s mandate for another period of three years. It hoped that the Working Group would be given the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate.

PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International, said that enforced disappearances were one of the worst forms of violations of human rights. The Convention did not diminish the need for the Working Group. At the national level the practice was far from being eradicated. Hundreds of cases had not been solved. States had to collaborate with the Working Group. The Working Group had facilitated the resolution of several pending cases. The Council was urged to renew the mandate of the Working Group.

DARKO GOTTLICHER, member of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances, in concluding remarks, said the new practice of enforced and involuntary disappearances was not synonymous with cases of years ago. These cases had contemporary implications. Given the humanitarian aspect of the work of the Working Group, its work focused on the right of truth for the victims’ families. The 10,437 cases clarified by the Working Group since its inception 30 years ago presented an achievement insofar as it not only shed light on the fates of human beings but also in that it put a stop to the emotional upheaval of the victims’ families.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), in concluding remarks, said that the Human Rights Council should not forget the suffering of the families of victims of enforced disappearances. The Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances was not tainted by selectivity since it was currently engaged in cases in 78 countries. Bearing in mind the statements just made in the Council, the Government of France hoped for a consensus on the renewal of this particularly important and effective mandate.

Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Independent Expert on International Solidarity

RAFAEL GARCIA COLLADA (Cuba), introducing the mandate of the Independent Expert on international solidarity, said that the mandate had been created as a follow-up of the recognition by Governments of the fundamental value of solidarity. Those who suffered deserved to be helped. Various state and non-state players were coming together to achieve the goal of promoting and protecting those rights that were linked to the key value of solidarity. Over the years, the mandate had been improved and had taken into account associated problems. The Independent Expert in his reports had tackled a whole range of issues dealing with pandemics, the right to health and building necessary infrastructures for development. The Independent Expert was seeking to help overcome the injustices of the world order. In light of globalization and global warming, international solidarity was becoming more and more important in order to ensure the survival of humanity. The mandate was not being carried out with a punitive approach. Strengthening the international community and conducting a respectful dialogue were the key components of the mandate. Cuba hoped that the mandate would be supported with immense majority.

GAY MCDOUGALL, Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, reading out the statement on behalf of RUDI MUHAMMAD RIZKI, the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, noted that the mandate emerged from resolution 2005/55, where the former Commission on Human Rights emphasized the importance of international solidarity as a vital component of the efforts of developing countries toward the realization of the right to development of their people and the promotion of the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights for everyone. The Commission tasked the Independent Expert, whom it appointed for three years, to study the issue of international solidarity and human rights and to prepare a draft declaration on the rights of peoples to international solidarity. The Independent Expert also sought to establish the scope and applicability of the concept of international solidarity. In this regard, the three focus areas so far developed in the past two reports were: international cooperation, global response to natural disasters, diseases and agricultural pests, and third generation rights. These three major areas embodied the contours of international solidarity as framed in declarations and programmes of action.

On the area of international cooperation, it was of essential importance to the realization of the right to development and in contributing to equality in development, in particular the fairer distribution of the benefits of globalization. As to the second area of focus on the global response to natural disasters, diseases and agricultural pests, it was noted that with an increase in the impact of natural disasters in recent years, also fuelled by climate change, this had created a growing recognition of international solidarity and sustainable development and related efforts needed to prevent and reduce the effects of natural disasters. On diseases, promoting health and fighting pandemics, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and the emerging avian influenza, international solidarity would improve the lives of many people and resonate with Millennium Development Goal number Six. The third area of third-generation rights included the right to development, already mentioned in the context of international cooperation. Through the extension of this mandate, this would provide the Independent Expert with the opportunity to explore these three focus areas in greater depth.

ANDREYA KORINSEK (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union had not supported the initial proposal for the mandate on human rights and international solidarity and its position had not changed. Its primary concern was that the concept of international solidarity could not be articulated in terms of human rights norms. Whilst trying to solidify international solidarity, it was not a fundamental human right and was more rhetorical than something that could be actively applied. At the same time, the European Union believed that each State had the responsibility to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens and that international solidarity should not be used to offset those national obligations. In a question to the Independent Expert, what had been done to establish international human rights norms in the context of international solidarity?

NAHIDA SOBHAN (Bangladesh) said Bangladesh believed it was very important in the current international context of globalization to work through international solidarity. It was not an option but an obligation. Greater international solidarity was needed. Cooperation was essential in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Transparency in the international financial monetary and trading system was essential. Capacity building was needed.

NESTOR CRUZ TORUNO Nicaragua) said Nicaragua attached great importance to the mandate of the Independent Expert as a key component with regards to showing that developing countries had the right to development. The experiences of new liberal policies had often denied solidarity and mutual assistance and undermined community identities. Nicaragua supported the renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert, through which, it was hoped that the rights of individuals would be upheld. International solidarity was cross-cutting to all human rights.

KE YOUSHENG (China) said that China greatly appreciated the role of the Independent Expert on international solidarity and supported the renewal of this mandate. China believed in the right to development and expressed its concern at the growing gap between developed and developing countries. Developed countries needed to provide greater assistance to developing countries to achieve better human rights records. Furthermore, the Government of China wished to ensure that international cooperation occurred on an equal basis.

NIK ADY ARMAN (Malaysia) said that globalization was bringing a tremendous amount of challenges and possibilities, these challenges had to be managed through more international solidarity. Official development assistance was one of the means. Appreciation was expressed for the countries that had achieved their target of allocating 0.7 per cent of their gross national income for official development assistance. The international community should accept international solidarity as the right of peoples. Malaysia supported the renewal of the mandate.

RAFAEL GARCIA COLLADA (Cuba), in concluding remarks, said after having heard the presentation on behalf of the Independent Expert and the statements by States, Cuba was confident that the mandate of the Independent Expert would be carried over for three more years. Cuba was convinced that the mandate would be strengthened and would contribute to the effectiveness of the work carried out by the Human Rights Council to the benefit of people throughout the world. Cuba restated that the work of solidarity was a joint effort of all States which would contribute to solve the problems afflicting people all over the world today.

Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Working Group on Use of Mercenaries

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), introducing the mandate, said that the mandate of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination was initially set up to reaffirm the rights of certain populations to achieve peaceful self-determination, particularly in certain African countries at the time. The Cuban Government noted the continued presence of mercenaries in Africa and elsewhere. The Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group, at the time, noted new security agencies that recruited the services of mercenary groups, beyond those required of security services. The Working Group was indeed essential to addressing the issues surrounding the recruitment, use and financing of mercenaries. The Working Group was initially composed of a diverse group of Independent Experts and Mr. José Gómez del Prado was now the Chairman.

In explaining reasons for the renewal of this particular mandate, Cuba outlined the continued activities of mercenary interventions around the world. On the one hand, traditional mercenary groups continued to operate but the Working Group had also detected multi-service, multi-purpose mercenary groups being increasingly used and recruited by Governments. This went against international human rights and humanitarian law. As such, the mandate needed to be renewed to ensure that individuals the world over had the right to sovereignty and self-determination. Furthermore, Cuba wished to thank the efforts of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries and the support garnered for this mandate within the Human Rights Council.

JOSE L. GOMEZ DEL PRADO, Chairperson of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, introducing the mandate, said the Working Group had now been in existence for three years. At the time of its establishment, the Council expanded the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on mercenaries to be covered instead by a five-person Working Group. One of the immediate effects of the Working Group’s work was the ratification of the International Convention on Mercenaries. The mandate benefited from knowledge and experiences from the five members, each of whom had a different experience and background. Each of the members was able to promote in their own region the work of the Working Group. The members of the Working Group had participated in a range of activities in their respective regions. The Working Group had received a great deal of attention and publicity in the media. The work of the Working Group had a real impact on international public opinion. It was noted that the Working Group had held consultations with more than 50 United Nations permanent missions in Geneva and New York.

Unlike other Special Procedures, the Working Group also addressed the rights of the violators from a human security approach, which complemented other mandates, he pointed out. The Working Group had looked at issues related to the phenomenon of mercenaries and had drawn up procedures to allow groups to submit communications when they felt their rights were violated by private security firms. The Working Group had been able to carry out many missions to counties which provided cheap labor to these security firms. This information had been provided in the annual report of the Working Group. It was noted that the next group of visits by the Working Group would be to exporting countries. The Working Group would also continue its consultations with regional groups.

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Working Group on the use of mercenaries had a high significance in the Human Rights Council in the context of the evolving nature of contemporary warfare. The mandate particularly addressed the challenges to remove obstacles that were preventing the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. The right to self determination was one of the fundamental human rights. Various reports of the Working Group had highlighted the growing phenomena of the privatisation of warfare. It was hoped that the Working Group would be able to take into account the new challenges. The Working Group should address the question of jurisdiction under international law regarding the accountability of private security groups. One major challenge would be to propose guidelines for monitoring the activities of private security agencies to bring them in line with international human rights standards.

ANDREYA KORINSEK (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that in the past the European Union had not supported the mandate on mercenaries. While mercenaries could present a real threat to peace and stability, the Human Rights Council was not the appropriate body to discuss such matters. The Council should wholly focus its efforts on the compliance of States to their international human rights obligations.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation supported the mandate of the Working Group on mercenaries and was convinced that the Group made an important contribution to supporting international standards in the promotion and protection of human rights. The work of the Working Group would help to change the position of those who continued to deny the responsibility of non-States actors for human rights violations.

CAIO ARELLANO, of Human Rights Advocates, said that the privatisation of military activities posed a significant threat to human rights. Unlike State military, private groups operated with impunity. This resulted in widespread violations. The use of force by these actors was raising questions. International accountability mechanisms were needed.

JOSE L. GOMEZ DEL PRADO, Chairperson of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, in concluding remarks, said the Working Group would take into consideration the comments and views expressed during the course of the discussion. Next month the Working Group would meet and would adopt a common position bearing in mind the views expressed today in the Council.

YURY GALA (Cuba), wrapping up the debate on the Working Group on mercenaries, said that the Working Group had been doing excellent work on its mandate. It should continue to follow-up on traditional forms of mercenaries and the recommendations that it had made in its last report. The Working Group could also provide greater scrutiny on the use of mercenaries in private security companies. The Government of Cuba expressed its gratitude to those who had participated in the general debate, the Working Group and the Independent Expert. The corresponding draft resolution, which had been circulated in the room to Member States, would hopefully be agreed upon as this mandate was an important one to renew and support.

Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Independent Expert on Minority Issues

CHRISTINA KOKKINAKIS (Austria), introducing the mandate of the Independent Expert on minority issues, said that it concerned a human rights challenge attached to the rights of persons. Minorities continued to face violence and poverty and were not allowed to take part in civil life in many countries around the world. Only the promotion of tolerance could achieve an improvement of the situation. The core element of the mandate was the promotion of the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The mandate requested the Independent Expert to identify best practices. The Independent Expert had applied a gender perspective to her work. In order to avoid duplication, the mandate had to collaborate with all relevant agencies. The mandate had significantly contributed to the implementation of the Declaration and it served as an important tool against social exclusion. The Secretary-General had evaluated the performance and effectiveness of the mechanism and had noted that the mandate was giving visibility to the minority issue. The Secretary-General’s report concluded that the mechanisms should be maintained. Taking into account that the mandate was a young one, was the Independent Expert already able to identify the most important parts of the mandate? Which should be the priorities of the mandate in the next three years?

GAY MCDOUGALL, United Nations Independent Expert in minority issues, noted that minority issues existed in all regions of the world and minorities everywhere continued to face serious violations of their rights. Ethnic or religious groups were reportedly the principal targets of approximately three quarters of the armed conflicts around the world. Minorities were disproportionately affected by extreme poverty and deliberate policies of economic exclusion. Where they had been subjected to long-term discrimination, they tended to also be marginalized in the political process. In carrying out the mandate, the Independent Expert had used a four-point legal and conceptual framework which encompassed concerns relating to minorities globally. These were: the protection of a minority’s survival, through combating violence against them; the protection and promotion of the cultural identity of minority groups and their right of national, ethnic, religious or linguistic rights to enjoy their collective identity and to reject forced assimilation; the guarantee of the rights of non-discrimination and equality, including ending structural or systematic discrimination and the promotion of affirmative action when required; and, the guarantee of the right to effective participation of members of minorities in public life, especially with regard to decisions that affected them.

While other mechanisms addressed categories of violations that may be directed against individuals, the minority rights component of such violations was often neglected, Ms. McDougall noted. No other United Nations Special Procedures mandate provided the opportunity to look holistically at minority issues and the positive value of minority inclusion. It was emphasized that the objective of the contemporary view of minority rights that was pursued by the Independent Expert was one that sought to contribute to national unity, to foster integrated societies and to promote social inclusion and cohesion. It was clear that, through experience, there was a need to heed the early warning signals of multi-ethnic societies on the verge of crisis. New preventive strategies had to be developed to get both governments and the international community to make appropriate responses before inequalities led to tensions that descended into conflict. Today, minority communities faced both old and persistent problems, as well as new challenges. The mandate was an important mechanism through which the Human Rights Council could help societies to understand that respect for minority rights was crucial to achieving stable and prosperous societies, in which human rights, development and security may be achieved by all, and shared by all.

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the OIC attached great importance to the mandate of the Independent Expert on minority issues. The task of the Independent Expert was both complex and challenging to promote the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The scope and definition of minorities was clear and prescriptive in the Declaration and the OIC therefore believed that the mandate should not be stretched to incorporate self-perceived or controversial notions of minorities. One big challenge for the mandate holder in the coming years would be to ensure the rights of religious minorities, in particular the right to manifest and practice their religions without fear, intimidation or coercion. Finally, the OIC hoped that the Independent Expert would collaborate his/her work with other relevant Special Procedures such as the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief.

ANDREYA KORINSEK (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Independent Expert on how she had implemented the mandate. The efforts she had undertaken to coordinate her activities with other bodies were welcomed. Since its establishment the mandate had effectively contributed to the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The mandate served as an important focal point. The importance of the issue of women that were part of minorities had often been highlighted and the mandate should continue to strengthen its emphasis in this direction. Which thematic areas were particularly relevant for technical cooperation in the mind of the Independent Expert?

NATALIA ZOLOTOVA (Russian Federation) said the mandate was one of the central United Nations’ mechanisms for protecting the rights of minorities, who were one of the most vulnerable groups in the population. The Russian Federation supported the extension of the mandate for a period of three years. It was the view of the Russian Federation that the Independent Expert’s work was successful due to the balanced nature of the mandate’s provision as well as the methods of work by which the Independent Expert carried out her work.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) underscored the way in which the Independent Expert had conducted her mandate. Brazil reminded the Council that it had ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention of Racism. On the right to racial equality, Brazil had recently established a Ministerial office to promote racial equality and positive discrimination. In 2007, it had also established an office to ensure indigenous participation in society and Government, in particular to policies that affected their livelihood. Contemplating the history and diversity of Brazil, protecting traditional knowledge and culture was crucial and the Government remained committed to promoting minority rights. It therefore supported the renewal of this mandate.

TUGBA SARAYONLU ETENSEL (Turkey) said that the protection of minorities was an important issue. Turkey had actively participated in the establishment of the mandate. There was no doubt that the definition of the term minority was an important factor, as in each country there were differences. Turkey would continue its cooperation with the Independent Expert in accordance with the recognised minorities in the country.

CARLOS EDUARDO DA CUNHA, of International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, on behalf of severals NGOs1, said that around 20 per cent of the world’s population belonged to a minority and minority communities faced many complex problems in all regions of the world. The United Nations had consistently recognized that the protection of minorities contributed to peace and social stability. Minorities often suffered disproportionately in situations of conflict. Therefore minority rights were critical to the United Nations’ effective work. The vital importance of the mandate of the Independent Expert to the Human Rights Council was stressed. The synergies envisaged by the Council between the Forum on Minority Issues, created in September 2007, and with the Independent Expert, along with the forthcoming Durban Review process, would provide a valuable contribution to the promotion of the rights of minorities and the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.

GAY MACDOUGALL, Independent Expert on minority issues, thanked speakers for the support they had expressed with regards to her mandate. Regarding the most important aspect of her mandate, she reiterated the importance of monitoring mechanisms. She was therefore trying to visit as many countries as possible to see the practices on the ground and to assess the differing views and treatment of minorities around the world.

With respect to thematic areas that she believed were critical on the ground, poverty and the issues related to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals were both a priority. In most countries, minorities were often the poorest of the poor and as such, tackling issues of poverty and citizenship were a means to address minority rights. Finally, education was a critical concern for many minority groups. In conclusion, she thanked Austria for supporting the mandate on minority rights.

CHRISTINA KOKKINAKIS (Austria), wrapping up, said that the Council should continue to tackle the issue of minorities. There was a strong need for a human rights mechanism to address this issue. The elements of the mandate established as of 2005 were a solid base for the mandate and the Council could be built on this framework for its extension. Confidence was expressed over a consensual outcome for the review of the mandate.

Right of Reply

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply in reference to a statement by Israel made during the morning meeting, said it was unfortunate that the Representative of Israel, a regime responsible for more than six decades of uninterrupted suppression and systematic violation of all human rights of Palestinians, had once again tried to divert the attention of the Council from ongoing atrocities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories through launching a series of baseless and distorted accusations against others, while totally ignoring the very obvious and bitter facts and realities on the ground. Without any doubt, occupation, aggression and daily attacks against innocent civilians, including women and children in occupied Palestine, and depriving people from exercising their right to self-determination as well as enjoying their economic, social and cultural rights on their own homeland, constituted severe breaches of all international human and humanitarian laws and demonstrated vivid examples of genocide and holocaust of the oppressed people of Palestine by the Israeli regime at present. Most recently one of the high-ranking officials of the said regime officially announced that Israel would launch a holocaust against Palestinians. It was the view of Iran that this assertion was horrific and required the appropriate attention of the Human Rights Council.

TIBOR SHALEV-SCHLOSSER (Israel), speaking in a right of reply, said that the previous statement was merely a cynical attempt by the Iranian regime to excuse the statements of its leaders and dwarf the impact of their words. The explicit desire to eradicate a Member State was in clear violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Israel would prefer if the Iranian delegation remained silent on this issue.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a second right of reply, said that he thought that it was very clear for the international community who had committed genocide.


1Joint statement: International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; Minority Rights Group International; Asian Legal Resource Centre; Islamic Human Rights Commission; and Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08032E