HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON RIGHT TO EDUCATION, EXTREME POVERTY AND TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue on the reports on the independence of judges, internally displaced persons and extrajudicial killings.
Vernor Munoz Villalobos, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said that the right to education for all children who had lost all options for education because of natural disasters should not be denied. In that regard, there was an increasing interest to include an education response to humanitarian assistance. Natural disasters had been on the increase and affected everyone. One frequently found that education was not treated as a basic human right. It was delayed and denied during periods of reconstruction. Bombings and disasters in schools had increased, and the report showed that 27 million girls and boys have been denied that access as a result of violence and natural disasters, and that had had devastating impacts for the future of States.
Speaking as a concerned country on the Special Rapporteur on the right to education’s report on his country visit in 2006, Morocco said that the Moroccan Parliament had passed a law in 2002 declaring education for children between the ages of 6 and 15 mandatory. Various measures were specified in the law, including support for poor children and those living in rural areas. The education of children with disabilities was part of a strategy to continue their development and education and their integration into society. Morocco acknowledged that there were still difficulties in integrating those children.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, speaking as a concerned country on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said that they remained committed to progress on the right to education and strongly supported this Special Procedure mechanism. The right of children to education was legislated in Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Bosnia and Herzegovina was a State party. Bosnia and Herzegovina had an education reform plan to address long-term processes and progress in that area, with a set of objectives to be reached by 2010.
Magdalena Sepulveda, Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, said that her report was actually the report of her predecessor, Arjun Sengupta that could not be presented at the seventh session of Human Rights Council. He had also provided various recommendations. One of the achievements he had made was a better understanding of the link between human rights and extreme poverty. That work required further elaboration, and she would make it a priority. The working definition of extreme poverty was a combination of income poverty, human development poverty and social exclusion. That definition emphasized that no measure to reduce poverty could succeed without addressing the consequences of social exclusion. Furthermore, the elimination of extreme poverty required not only domestic action, but international action as well. Also, extreme poverty was a problem for all countries, but especially for developing countries.
John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, presenting his final report, said that it provided a succinct mapping of current standards and practices governing corporate responsibility and accountability in relation to human rights, a rapidly changing field. The overall problem in his view was that these measures constituted unrelated fragments of responses. His current report therefore identified a conceptual and policy framework for consideration by the Council. It was organised around three foundational principles: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and the need for more effective access to remedies. The framework itself did no constitute a solution by itself, but it provided all parties with a common baseline from which to achieve greater coherence and guidance.
During the interactive dialogue, delegations thanked Mr Ruggie for his conceptual framework; it had enabled work to move forward in this complex area. The realisation of the right to education was believed to be important, especially during natural disasters and in conflict and post conflict reconstruction contexts. This issue deserved greater attention. On extreme poverty, it was felt that its eradication was an urgent task, as it systematically led to human rights violations. The main instrument in combating that phenomenon was sustainable development and the redistribution of income locally and internationally. Without that, any efforts done by human rights instruments would be vain.
Also speaking this afternoon in the interactive dialogue were the delegations of India, Norway, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, France, Luxemburg, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, China, Egypt, Italy, Qatar, Algeria, Malaysia, Argentina, Republic of Korea, Portugal, Thailand, Peru, Bangladesh, Chile, Cuba, the United Kingdom, Venezuela and Nigeria.
Speaking in right of reply were Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Colombia and Thailand.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue on the reports on the independence of judges, internally displaced persons and extrajudicial killings.
In concluding remarks, Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said on the proposal for a Special Rapporteur on the rights of detainees, there was an historical irony here, as the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners was probably the very first really detailed substantive human rights code elaborated by the United Nations in the 1950s. Since that time detainees had been forgotten about. Existing mandates could look at one or other dimensions, but did not cover the issue fully. Whether there should be a new mandate was for the Council to decide, however.
Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in concluding remarks, said that, concerning what was said by Egypt on the matter of translation and the submission of reports, it would be useful if Special Rapporteurs could know before hand when they were to make their presentations before setting the date for submission of reports. He had taken note of all the statements and, as had been said by some delegations, he agreed that it was especially important to draft a document on best practices, to include all sectors of the judiciary. With regard to the Optional Protocol on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Mr. Despouy thought that that would have an impact on those rights.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on independence of judges, internally displaced persons and extrajudicial killings, at the beginning of the meeting were representatives of CAPAJ and the World Council of Churches.
When the Council resumes its work, at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 June, it is scheduled to conclude its interactive dialogue on the right to education, extreme poverty and transnational corporations, before considering the High Commissioner’s reports.
Reports by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Vernor Muñoz Villalobos (A/HRC/8/10 and Add.1-4). [Available in Spanish only]
A first addendum contains summaries of communications to and from Governments. During the period under review, the Special Rapporteur transmitted 14 communications to the Governments of 12 countries: Colombia, Czech Republic, Iran, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Sri Lanka, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. At the time of submitting the present report the Special Rapporteur has received responses from the Governments of China, Colombia, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Three were responses to these communications and four were replies to communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur over the past years. The Special Rapporteur regrets that some Governments failed to respond.
A second addendum contains the Special Rapporteur’s report of his mission to Morocco. [Available in French only]
The Special Rapporteur’s findings of his mission to Malaysia are contained in a third addendum. [Not available]
The report of the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2007 is contained in a fourth addendum, which notes that the education system in Bosnia and Herzegovina is highly fragmented; there are 14 ministries of education. The Special Rapporteur analyses the obligations of the State with regard to the enjoyment of the right to education using four criteria: availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability. The Special Rapporteur then comments on two main issues that he identified as affecting the enjoyment of the right to education in Bosnia and Herzegovina: the excessive fragmentation and politicization of the education system; and the segregation between ethnic groups and assimilation processes based on ethnic motives.
Report by the Former Independent Expert on the Question of Human Rights and Extreme Poverty
The Council has before it the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, Arjun Sengupta (A/HRC/7/15), in which the Independent Expert defines extreme poverty as the combination of income poverty, human development poverty and social exclusion. Attention should be focused on the intersection of these three components of poverty when social consensus on poverty reduction strategies are formulated. On this basis, the Independent Expert notes that European Union policies are based on the same conceptual understanding of poverty as he has proposed. In this context, European Union programmes promoting social inclusion are discussed. In the report, the Independent Expert emphasizes the importance of international cooperation, which is enshrined in international human rights law. In order to examine the effectiveness of international cooperation in eradicating extreme poverty, he makes some observations on past experiences on poverty reduction strategy papers in Africa. He concludes the report by emphasizing the need to recognize that extreme poverty is a denial of human rights, and suggests that guiding principles on extreme poverty become legally binding.
Reports of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises
The Council has before it the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie (A/HRC/8/5 and Add.1-2), which presents a conceptual and policy framework to anchor the business and human rights debate, and to help guide all relevant actors. The framework comprises three core principles: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and the need for more effective access to remedies. The three principles form a complementary whole in that each supports the others in achieving sustainable progress. The root cause of the business and human rights predicament today lies in the governance gaps created by globalization. These governance gaps provide the permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies of all kinds without adequate sanctioning or reparation. Some stakeholders believe that the solution lies in a limited list of human rights for which companies would have responsibility, while extending to companies, where they have influence, essentially the same range of responsibilities as States. But businesses can affect virtually all internationally recognized rights. Therefore, any limited list will almost certainly miss one or more rights that may turn out to be significant in a particular instance. Finally, the United Nations is not a centralized command-and-control system that can impose its will on the world - indeed it has no “will” apart from that with which Member States endow it. But it can and must lead intellectually and by setting expectations and aspirations. The Human Rights Council can make a singular contribution to closing the governance gaps in business and human rights by supporting the proposed framework, inviting its further elaboration, and fostering its uptake by all relevant social actors.
A first addendum to the report contains the summary of five multi-stakeholder consultations that convened to assist the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in developing his conceptual and policy framework. The consultations addressed the following issues: the role of States in effectively regulating and adjudicating the activities of corporations with respect to human rights; business and human rights in conflict zones: the role of home States; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; accountability mechanisms for resolving corporate-related human rights complaints and disputes; and improving the human rights performance of business through multi-stakeholder initiatives. Each of the consultations was co-convened with a non-governmental organization. The main goal of one of the consultations was to generate ideas concerning the legal and policy dimensions of home and host State duties. Most participants agreed that States had a duty to protect against abuses by corporations within their jurisdiction but that many States either did not fully understand or were unwilling to fulfil that duty. Participants also agreed that home States should exercise at least some degree of due diligence before encouraging “their” companies to operate in conflict zones.
A second addendum summarizes the scope and patterns of alleged corporate-related human rights abuse found in a sample of 320 cases posted on the Business and Human Rights Resource Center web. An initial coding of cases showed that all industry sectors were alleged to impact human rights, and impacts were alleged to occur in all regions. Environmental harms were also noted as they were often connected to claims of negative impacts on human rights. Allegations of corruption were recorded, recognizing that corruption can impede realization of all rights. Findings include that corporations are alleged to impact the full range of human rights, including civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; and that labour and non-labour rights were both impacted.
In a companion report entitled, Clarifying the Concepts of “Sphere of influence” and “Complicity” (A/HRC/8/16), the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises explains how both concepts fit into the corporate responsibility to respect rights. It establishes due diligence, a process whereby companies not only ensure compliance with national laws but also manage the risk of human rights harm with a view to avoiding it. He then examines how the concepts of sphere of influence and complicity have potential implications for the scope of due diligence.
Presentation of Reports of Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education
VERNOR MUÑOZ VILLALOBOS, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said that he had engaged in numerous working meetings with Governments, multilateral bodies, students, national human rights institutions, and many more around the world in each region. The right to education for all children who had lost all options for education because of natural disasters should not be denied. In that regard, there was an increasing interest to include an education response to humanitarian assistance. Natural disasters had been on the increase and affected everyone. People involved in emergency situations and cases differed, however, and it should not lead to the suspension of national and international rights. Those disasters could occur in any region, and the civilian population was the main victim. The security of schools, specifically the physical security of schools should be a right included in education. States should come up with effective protective measures.
One frequently found that education was not treated as a basic human right, Mr. Muñoz Villalobos said. It was delayed and denied during periods of reconstruction. Bombings and disasters in schools had increased, and the report showed that 27 million girls and boys have been denied that access as a result of violence and natural disasters, and that had had devastating impacts for the future of States. Education made it possible to enjoy cognitive and social aspects of life and to increase the quality of those lives. It provided structure, normalcy, and hope during times of instability. Recognition of articles 4 and 20 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child had not been fully and clearly translated into reality by the international community. The implications had been made clear, and if States were not able to show or prove a right to education they should be denied funding requests. Minimum standards should be met and the international community should step up its efforts to achieve that. Here he recalled that only 1.5 per cent of total humanitarian commitments were actually allocated to education.
In his 2007 visit to Morocco, Mr. Muñoz Villalobos said he had familiarized himself with the challenges faced by that country and what the more vulnerable groups had at stake. Despite those challenges, great progress had been made in the legislation and institutional sectors. Morocco viewed education as a right and had increased literacy to 93 per cent by 2007, as opposed to 43 per cent in 1960’s. Some of the challenges Morocco faced were basic living requirements such as access to drinking water and electricity, which had been major challenges for the country especially in rural areas.
Presentation by the Independent Expert on the Question of Human Rights and Extreme Poverty
MAGDALENA SEPULVEDA, Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, said that her report was actually the report of her predecessor, Arjun Sengupta, that could not be presented at the seventh session of Human Rights Council. During his tenure, Mr. Sengupta had prepared various reports that shed light on links between human rights and poverty. He had also undertaken two trips as Independent Expert: to the United States in 2005 and to the European Commission Offices in Brussels in 2007. He had also provided various recommendations. One of the achievements he had made was a better understanding of the link between human rights and extreme poverty. That work required further elaboration, and she would make it a priority.
There are four main issues in the report: the definition of extreme poverty; social exclusion; international assistance and cooperation; and the draft Guideline Principles on the Rights of the Poor. The working definition of extreme poverty was a combination of income poverty, human development poverty and social exclusion, Ms. Sepulveda said. That definition emphasized that no measure to reduce poverty could succeed without addressing the consequences of social exclusion. Furthermore, the elimination of extreme poverty required not only domestic action, but international action as well. The report emphasized the importance of creating a mechanism that allowed for the monitoring of international assistance. The draft Guiding Principles were another important step towards the recognition of the multifaceted problems faced by those living in situations of extreme poverty.
Ms. Sepulveda noted that extreme poverty was a problem for all countries, but especially for developing countries. Human rights existed as a centrepiece in many United Nations documents and declarations from the United Nations Charter to the Millennium Development Declaration and Goals. In spite of all the commitments and the initiatives launched and the great economic growth in many regions, inequalities had grown larger and poverty continued to threaten the rights and dignity of people in all regions of the world. A human rights approach to poverty eradication had never been needed more urgently than now. Supported by the most important international treaties and by a range of legal instruments at national level, a human rights approach shifted discussions on the fight against poverty from the realm of charity to the realm of rights and consequences. States had certain legal obligations relating to people living in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty was a great human rights challenge. It was crucial that the Council gave high priority to the suffering of millions of women, men and children living in extreme poverty around the world.
Presentation by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises
JOHN RUGGIE, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, presenting his final report, said that during their short journey they had already covered a lot of ground: they had analysed nearly 400 public allegations against companies, they had followed dozens of court cases and he had met personally on private site visits with victimized indigenous peoples' groups, with workers in supply chains and with labour leaders whose colleagues had been killed by paramilitaries protecting company assets. Fourteen multi-stakeholder meetings had also been held, addressing both the nature of the challenges and also the full array of possible solutions. They had conducted some two-dozen research projects and had produced more than 1,000 pages of documentation. His last report had provided a succinct mapping of current standards and practices governing corporate responsibility and accountability in relation to human rights, a rapidly changing field. The overall problem in his view was that these measures constituted unrelated fragments of responses. Every stakeholder had expressed the urgent need for a common framework of understanding during their consultations.
His current report therefore identified a conceptual and policy framework for consideration by the Council, Mr. Ruggie said. It was organised around three foundational principles: the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and the need for more effective access to remedies. The State duty to protect was critical because it lay at the very core of the international human rights regime. The framework itself did no constitute a solution by itself, but it provided all parties with a common baseline from which to achieve greater coherence and guidance. On the State duty to protect, it was often stressed that Governments were the most appropriate entities to make the difficult balancing decisions required to reconcile different societal needs. But in the area of his mandate, his research raised questions about whether Governments had the balance right. Often human rights concerns were kept apart from other policy domains that shaped business practices. Governments needed to actively encourage a corporate culture that was respectful of human rights. On the second component, corporate responsibility to respect human rights, that was recognized in a number of soft law instruments, including the International Labour Organisation Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises. But relatively few enterprises had systems in place to know if they were respecting human rights. Accordingly, his report outlined a due diligence process for companies to manage the risk of human rights harm with a view to avoiding it.
Statements by Concerned Countries
OMAR RABI (Morocco), speaking as a concerned country on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education on his country visit in 2006, said the report gave a thorough description of the state of education in Morocco. The Moroccan Parliament had passed a law in 2002 declaring education for children between the ages of 6 and 15 mandatory. Various measures were specified in the law, including support for poor children and those living in rural areas. The education of children with disabilities was part of a strategy to continue their development and education and their integration into society. The level of disabled children attending school was currently 32 per cent. Morocco acknowledged that there were still difficulties in integrating those children. For that reason, a new agreement has been concluded between all the relevant ministries committing the Government to increase the number of disabled children to be educated to 70 per cent. The allotted budget for educating children ages 6 to 18 was 31 billion dirhams.
DRAGANA ANDELIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina), speaking as a concerned country, expressed appreciation Mr. Muñoz Villalobos for the work done during his visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina last year and for his report to Council. Bosnia and Herzegovina remained committed to progress on the right to education and strongly supported this Special Procedure mechanism. The Ministry of Civil Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina coordinated the role of education in the country, while the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees monitored the implementation of international conventions and other documents in the field of human rights. The right of children to education was legislated in Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Bosnia and Herzegovina was a State party. Bosnia and Herzegovina had an education reform plan to address long-term processes and progress in that area, with a set of objectives to be reached by 2010.
Interactive Dialogue on Reports on the Right to Education, Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, and Human Rights and Transnational Corporations
RAJIV KUMAR CHANDER (India) said that the definition of extreme poverty put forward by the previous Independent Expert on extreme poverty, which defined it as a combination of income poverty, human development poverty and social exclusion, was a comprehensive one. A human rights approach to tackle this issue entailed certain obligations for Governments at the national and international levels, as recognized in the Declaration on the Right to Development. On Mr. Ruggie’s report, the conceptual framework he had put forward in his last report held promise. The step-by-step approach followed by the mandate holder had been successful and had enabled work to move forward in this complex area. However, the individual elements of this three-legged framework needed to be defined in more precise terms or further developed.
VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) thanked Mr. Ruggie for his report. Norway commended his constructive and practical approach, and agreed with him that a key challenge was to narrow and bridge the governance gaps that provided the permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies. Norway supported the policy framework of "protect, respect and remedy". The next logical step was for the mandate holder to further develop the framework with a view to contributing in concrete terms to a more coherent and systemic response to the challenges at hand. Norway asked what further steps should be taken to provide actors with clarity on the corporate responsibility to respect.
ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for his report. In particular, it welcomed the methodology used in the preparation of the report, which entailed a questionnaire sent to Governments, United Nations bodies, non-governmental organizations and Independent Experts. The European Union believed that the realization of the right to education in emergency situations – whether man-made or natural disasters – deserved greater attention and that further efforts had to be made by all relevant stakeholders to ensure that right both in times of crisis and in post-conflict peace-building or reconstruction contexts. In this connection, the European Union asked the Special Rapporteur what measures should be taken to enhance coordination and prevent education from being interrupted in emergency situations. Further, what role should national authorities have in seeking and channelling international aid to the fulfilment of the right to education?
Turning to the complex issues surrounding human rights and businesses, the European Union welcomed the excellent work done by Mr. Ruggie since the creation of the mandate in 2005. Importantly, the report had focused on both the roles of States and the role of corporations in seeking to develop a framework that aimed to ensure protection of human rights. The European Union asked if the Special Representative could provide further details on what steps he envisaged could be taken to build most effectively on his work to date. Agreeing with Mr. Ruggie that human rights were at particular risk in conflict zones, the European Union asked what action could be suggested within the United Nations system to gather more information on that area?
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) asked the Independent Expert on extreme poverty, how could poor people be involved in the drafting of polices relating to them? As they were often deprived of their most basic human rights, was it not often the cause and the reason for their extreme poverty? On transnational corporations, the Special Representative’s observations and conclusions were fully endorsed. Also, international financial institutions should develop a monitoring system for their loans as well as a complaint mechanism. France asked the Special Representative to respond on how that could work in practice.
JEAN FEYDER (Luxembourg) said Luxembourg attached great importance to implementing the Millennium Development Goals, and that all organizations in the United Nations system that dealt with development in one way or another should use them as a point of reference for their own work and should seek to implement them. All of their efforts had to be consistent. The strategy offered by the Millennium Development Goals was not immutable, however, in Luxembourg's view. In that connection it had welcomed the multidimensional definition of extreme poverty that had been offered by the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, as compared with the strictly economic one described in the Millennium Development Goals – that of a living on less than $1 a day. Luxembourg therefore asked the Independent Expert how she would suggest that the United Nations system create a single definition of poverty that could be generally accepted.
DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said that Indonesia considered the eradication of extreme poverty to be of vital importance for many developing countries and less developed countries, allowing them to go beyond their socio-economic limitations and more effectively and efficiently establish long-term inclusive policies. The multifaceted nature of extreme poverty required that it be addressed at all levels including education, employment and socio-economic strata, to be effectively eliminated. Moreover, States had to be enabled through their national policies and international agreements to meet increasingly urgent developmental commitments such as the Millennium Development Goals before 2015. On the issue of human rights and transnational corporations, Indonesia said that it was important to encourage businesses to adapt strategies that flowed in line with human rights norms. The principles of due diligence should apply to countries as well as to national enterprises. Further, closing governance gaps that might exist between human rights and business practices was essential.
ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said that Russia agreed on the conclusion drawn by the Independent Expert on extreme poverty that extreme poverty systematically led to human rights violations. The main instrument in combating that phenomenon was sustainable development and the redistribution of income locally and internationally. Without that, any efforts done by human rights instruments would be vain. On transnational corporations, it was noted that they had virtually no responsibility to society, particularly in the States in which they operated, because they were practising corruptions of the elite. They tended to become a State within a State and that could lead to massive violations of all rights. It was felt that recognizing the responsibility of non-State actors deserved further study. On the report of the right to education, armed attacks on educational institutions were deeply condemned.
SYED ALI ASAD GILLANI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, thanked the Independent Expert for the report on human rights and extreme poverty and welcomed the definition of extreme poverty. He recalled that the Organization of the Islamic Conference had welcomed the Draft Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. They provided a workable framework, which could be further developed. Just formulating guidelines was not enough. It would require a strong political will and a multi-pronged and multi-dimensional approach at all levels to make extreme poverty part of history. The question of eradicating extreme poverty on a sustainable basis was difficult without addressing the question of development and security. The Organization of the Islamic Conference appreciated the Framework proposed by John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations. The framework was a work in progress. The approach suggested by the framework required serious thought by all delegations. Formulating guidelines regarding basic responsibilities of States and companies was a challenge. Without internationally agreed and mandatory minimum corporate social responsibility standards it would be difficult to address the issue from the human rights perspective in totality.
KE YOUSHENG (China) thanked the three Experts for their reports and especially appreciated the work done on the right to education. China said that education was a basic human right and that the Government paid close attention to this right. The State had achieved universal education for children and extended this right past the age of 15 for an additional eight to ten years. The Government supported the Council in continuing work on this issue in an objective and impartial manner.
China said that as a developing country, it appreciated the work done on eliminating poverty. All human rights were interrelated. China hoped that the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty would work closely with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food in eradicating poverty.
China had taken note of the three principles noted in the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and extended thanks to Mr. Ruggie for the clarifications given. China asked if there are any priorities set for the principles, and how could the business community see the three principles in order to enhance human rights.
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) welcomed the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations to include corporations in the human rights debate. On the issue of corporate abuses in conflict zones, it was noted that transnational corporations were involved in actions like killings done by security agents of private enterprises or building works in occupied territories. Transnational corporations were engaged in the most flagrant violations of human rights worldwide. Specific policies had to be developed when applying the Special Representative’s framework.
NICOLETTA PICCIRILLO (Italy) reiterated its full support to the promotion and protection of children’s right to education. Italy asked the Special Rapporteur on the right to education about his recommendations to improve security at schools. Which United Nations agencies should be responsible for strengthening education in an emergency? Italy appreciated the level of analysis in the report by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and put its trust in the framework he had proposed. Italy asked for concrete examples of policies concerning harmful corporate involvement in conflict situations. It also asked what leverage Professor Ruggie thought a company had over other actors that were causing harm and how he thought that leverage could be used to avoid human rights abuses.
FAISAL ABDULLA AL-HENZAB (Qatar) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for his work. Education was neither a service nor a privilege, rather it was a social, economic and cultural right and this right extended to the linkage of the whole in enjoying human rights. Every person must be able to receive this right free of charge. Armed conflicts created one of the most difficult situations as well as natural disasters. The international community should remove all the impediments to the right to education. Vulnerable groups such as children with disabilities should be given more assistance. Qatar believed that the goal set for 2015 could only be reached if the international community and States concentrated on the marginalized groups and people with disabilities first.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said on the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and extreme poverty that the problem did not lie in any deficiency from those suffering from it, but rather in economic, social and international institutions. The fight against extreme poverty should be made an obligation for States. A conceptual framework was suggested, that would differentiate between the material and non-material aspects of extreme poverty. These elements would be used as guidelines for targeted action in this area. Further, each State should report to the High Commissioner on the criteria adopted on the ground.
The Representative of Malaysia thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for his report. Education was indeed a crucial and integral element for the nation-building of all countries irrespective of development status and time. Malaysia was pleased to have hosted the Special Rapporteur during his visit to the country in February 2007. It had been looking forward to engage with the Special Rapporteur at this session of the Human Rights Council. It regretted that the Special Rapporteur’s report on Malaysia was not ready for discussion at the Council. It hoped that the Human Rights Council would ensure technical resources would be made available soon to resolve the matter. Malaysia stated its appreciation on the efforts of the Special Rapporteur.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) thanked the three Experts for their reports. Argentina was pleased with the information included in the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations, which was compiled after a number of consultations. The report was inclusive and the Expert had collected the information from many parts of the world. It was the responsibility of all States to provide protection and provide support for businesses. Argentina had been an integral player in the work on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises since the mandate began in 2005.
KIM PIL-WOO (Republic of Korea) found that the framework proposed by the Special Representative of the Secretary–General on human rights and transnational corporations had rightly identified all the challenges faced today. It put forward a set of coherent and concerted policy solutions involving both States and corporations. The Republic of Korea fully ascribed to the basic idea of the framework and assigned responsibilities to relevant actors. A growing number of activist groups had joined the force to put pressure on businesses to be respectful of human rights. This often put enterprises in the position of being more aware of their diminishing status in the public perception. The enterprises came to learn that benefiting from abuses would not be profitable in the long term.
RAQUEL TAVARES (Portugal) reiterated the appreciation of Portugal for the work of the three Experts. The statement would deal solely with the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education. Portugal was a strong believer that it was imperative that the right to education be fully enjoyed by all persons. It expressed full support for the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. The issue of education during an emergency was clearly an issue which deserved to be given a higher priority by all relevant stakeholders. Portugal asked the Special Rapporteur what measures he would suggest in order to integrate education into humanitarian response to conflicts and natural disasters and to ensure that efforts were coordinated.
LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said that Thailand fully supported the continuation of work on the right to education and eliminating extreme poverty in the Council. Integrating the right to education in all strategies was a step towards enjoying full human rights. The report of the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty must be looked at from a development and human rights framework to ensure effective implementation. It had an impact on human dignity which impacted everyone. Dialogue was important and should be part of the regional and international agenda to address this issue. Programmes of technical assistance and humanitarian aid were essential in advancing human rights in the region and the world.
ALEJANDRO NEYRA SANCHEZ (Peru) said that Peru supported the definition of extreme poverty proposed by the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty. The definition highlighted a human rights approach. The consultations that had taken place on the guiding principles on extreme poverty were welcomed. Did the Independent Expert believe that these guiding principles could be developed further into a future international instrument? On transnational corporations, did the Special Representative think that it was possible to establish an early warning system that could react to flagrant human rights violations?
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) thanked the three Experts on their reports. On the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations, multinational companies were playing an increasing role in the development of countries. Some of these companies enjoyed impunity. It was difficult to hold companies accountable for human rights abuses, especially if they took places in weak States. Bangladesh agreed with the framework proposed by Professor John Ruggie. On the former Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, Arjun Sengupta, Bangladesh had high expectations for his work. Poverty was a violation of human rights. There was a moral responsibility to fight poverty. It was the view of experts that not all countries could fight poverty. Bangladesh supported the recommendation to draft a global legally-binding instrument to eliminate poverty. The Human Rights Council should not get bogged down in defining a specific definition. Bangladesh wished the new Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty well in her work and hoped she would begin where Dr. Sengupta left off.
CARLOS PORTALES (Chile) said Chile attached great importance to the right to education and particularly in emergency situations. Chile referred to the area in the south of the country that had recently been affected by the eruption of a volcano that caused 8,000 inhabitants to be evacuated and relocated, including students who had been relocated to other education institutions. The right to education in emergency situations should be part of the integral part of humanitarian aid.
Chile thanked the former Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty Arjun Segupta for his contribution in clarifying the conceptual relationship between human rights and extreme poverty, and congratulated Ms. Maria Sepulveda on her assumption of the mandate. Chile fully supported the Independent Expert in carrying out these tasks and agreed that they should be carried out in combination with human rights principles. The Government had set a priority in providing social protection systems to its citizens by 2010. The systems would create opportunities and a social benefits network. Chile said that it had undertaken the responsibility to convey all experiences in the country in order to eradicate poverty.
RAFAEL GARCIA COLLADA (Cuba) said that with regard to the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations that Chile was pleased to see that there was an inclusion to promote and protect human rights. What was his opinion with regard to origins of transnational corporations and what measures should be taken so as to avoid that corporations got involved in human rights violations during their operations? On the right to education, Cuba underlined that armed conflicts, including military occupation, had devastating impacts on education and access to education. Cuba attached great importance to the enjoyment of this right. It was suggested that in further reports, the Special Rapporteur should also take into account the impact of coercive measures imposed by other States.
KATE JONES (United Kingdom) said the comments of the United Kingdom would focus on the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations. The United Kingdom congratulated John Ruggie for his work and noted that he had broadly consulted stakeholders. The United Kingdom broadly supported the framework he proposed. It agreed that building upon existing standards of corporate responsibility was an important step in tackling human rights abuses. The United Kingdom also agreed with his recommendation on not elaborating a binding international mechanism at this time.
ENZO BITETTO GAVILANES (Venezuela) said that Venezuela agreed with the statements and concerns in the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education and the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty. Venezuela appealed to the international community to respect the international humanitarian and human rights law in these efforts. All international actors should participate to ensure that the full effort was put forth to eradicate this problem.
The line separating poverty and extreme poverty may not be clear and thus the Government of Venezuela supported the continuation of work in this regard. Culture was not a reason to reject a human rights approach to tackling poverty and extreme poverty. States of origin of transnational corporations should adopt procedures to avoid situations occurring abroad.
OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria) welcomed the conceptual framework proposed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations, which focused on the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses. This three-way approach allowed for complementarities that ensured each supporting the other in achieving sustainable progress. Nigeria believed that the international community was on the right path towards adapting the human rights regime that would be equipped to provide the much-desired effective protection to individuals and communities against corporate-related human rights abuses. The Special Representative’s call on the Human Rights Council to support this framework as endorsed.
Right of Reply
AZAD CAFAROV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply, took exception to the comments that the representative of Armenia made in the morning meeting. Azerbaijan had to face the huge humanitarian challenge and address the needs of almost one million of its own people who had become displaced and refugees in their own land. It should be clear to all present in the hall that Azerbaijan would never agree with Armenia. It would continue to work on its development as a successful, economically strong, democratic and genuinely free State that would spare no effort to restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Armenians had been used as pawns by their own government. Azerbaijan continued to believe that those ethnic Armenians who lived in Azerbaijan would realize that their best hope and their children’s best hope lay in peace and peaceful coexistence with Azerbaijanis and their host government. The price they paid was too high to afford.
RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, noted with sadness the emotional and misleading statement given by Interfaith International. The situation in Kalimoddai was certainly not the garden of eden, but it was infinitely preferable to the LTTE controlled areas. The claim that over 100 civilians had been massacred by government forces was breathtaking in its effrontery. The representative had clearly not read through the original report of the Special Rapporteur that had been categorical in its condemnation of the LTTE.
OMER BERZINJI (Iraq), speaking in a right of reply to the statement by North South XXI, said the justice system in Iraq was an independent body and in fact they were surprised that there were allegations made in the Council to note otherwise. There had been many steps taken to ensure that the judiciary and executive were separate. Iraq said that the system of the Government was based on a democratic model. The Government had attempted to combat crimes within the system and guaranteed to condemn all who committed such crimes.
ALMA VIVIANA PEREZ GOMEZ (Columbia), speaking in a right of reply on the statement made by the Organisation of Columbian Jurists, said Columbia had adopted a number of measures, including endorsing the order of the investigative body housed in the office of the Attorney General to investigate activities of the military, changing the criteria of unit and officials, supporting the creation of a special sub unit investigating human rights abuses by the military, and transferring cases from military courts to civilian courts. Columbia sited a number of cases which were currently being investigated by the Attorney General involving alleged human rights abuses. The Ministry of Defence has a policy of zero tolerance for human rights abuses.
PITCHAYAPHANT CHARNBHUMIDOL (Thailand), speaking in a right of reply, thanked the representative of the Asian Legal Resource Center for his remarks. The Government however wished to reiterate that it was strongly opposed to extrajudicial killings. Every such act conducted by law enforcement officers had to be prosecuted. Several cases had been brought to justice. On the allegation that no progress had been made in certain cases, the Government reiterated that progress was under way.
Continuation of the Interactive Dialogues with the Special Procedures on Extrajudicial and Summary Executions, Internally Displaced Persons and Independence of Lawyers
TOMAS ALARCON, of Comisión Jurídica para el Autodesarollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos (CAPAJ), said that on the independence of judges, the Special Rapporteur had put forward indigenous people as a vulnerable group. He had indicated that in the justice system, their customs were not taken into account in conflict resolution. That situation had to be remedied, especially in the light of the newly signed Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The international seminar on administration of justice and indigenous people, organized by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, had confirmed that the justice systems of indigenous people were efficient, and the Special Rapporteur was requested to take note of the recommendations of that seminar.
AMARYLLIS ENRIQUEZ, of Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches, in a joint statement with Asian Legal Resource Centre, and International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said that the information provided by Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, was fully supported and commended. Mr. Alston had correctly and succinctly concluded that the State security forces in the Philippines had been involved in many of the killings of left-wing activists, indigenous leaders, trade union and farmer leaders and civil society organization members. The military remained in a state of denial over those killings. The World Council of Churches urged the Council to thoroughly review the record of the Philippine State in upholding the rights of its citizens. They also reiterated the call for the Council to continue to pursue the Philippine Government to stop the extrajudicial killings and other human rights violations by adopting and genuinely carrying out the recommendations made by Mr. Alston.
Concluding Remarks by the Experts on Extrajudicial and Summary Executions and on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said he was very gratified by the level of engagement and the extent to which delegations had read, reflected on and commented on his reports. The delays in sending the follow-up reports to both Nigeria and Sri Lanka were regretted. With regard to the Philippines, he said he was actually much more encouraged than might be expected. The level of response within the Philippines had been very significant. He noted in particular the comments of the incoming President of the Philippines Human Rights Commission that she would return to the issues raised in his report and the comment by the incoming Chief of the Defence Forces that he would give priority to human rights issues, and the Special Rapporteur believed that the exchange he had had with the Government of the Philippines had contributed significantly to major reductions in the number of Killings. In relation to Nigeria, he said he appreciated the clarifications made and looked forward to a reply to his communications relating to the seven hangings alleged to have taken place in 2006. In relation to Afghanistan, he looked forward to further discussions.
On the proposal for a Special Rapporteur on the rights of detainees, Mr. Alston noted an historical irony here, as the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners was probably the very first really detailed substantive human rights code elaborated by the United Nations in the 1950s. Since that time detainees had been forgotten about. Existing mandates could look at one or other dimensions, but did not cover the issue fully. Whether there should be a new mandate was for the Council to decide, however. Concerning the death penalty, it should be emphasized that, even though countries had sophisticated constitutional courts, there was still a role for international monitors to review the approach taken, just as there was on other issues, such as torture. Finally, on private military contractors, that was an issue he would be taking up in the future and which he would address during his visit to the United States in two weeks' time.
LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in concluding remarks, said that, concerning what was said by Egypt on the matter of translation and the submission of reports, said that it would be useful if Special Rapporteurs could know before hand when they were to make their presentations before setting the date for submission of reports. He had taken note of all the statements and, as had been said by some delegations, he agreed that it was especially important to draft a document on best practices, to include all sectors of the judiciary.
With regard to the Optional Protocol on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Mr. Despouy thought that that would have an impact on those rights. Concerning the situation in Fiji, following the coup d'état he had tried several times to visit that country, but had not been allowed to visit the country. Concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he thanked the Government for their cooperation and the information he had received on follow-up to recommendations that he had received. The creation of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary had been a key to many reforms within the judiciary, as was the establishment and implementation of the Rome Statute (of the International Criminal Court) in a country that had witnessed some many crimes against humanity, and the ranking civil justice above military justice. He also noted the constant concern shown on the matter of crimes against women and the use of rape as a weapon of war. Justice was the cornerstone for the rule of law and was the front door to the defence of human rights.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08057E