HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children after concluding its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

Marta Santos Pais, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children, presenting her report, said violence had a pervasive and long lasting impact on children and a tremendous cost for society. Addressing violence against children was urgent. The Special Representative said she was committed to three critical goals: developing a comprehensive national strategy to prevent and respond to all forms of violence against children; introducing national legislation to prohibit all violence against them; and promoting a sound system of data and research on violence against children. By listening to children’s views and perspectives, States gained a better understanding of the hidden face of violence and its root causes; they became better equipped to develop child sensitive mechanisms for counselling, recovery and reintegration of child victims. The Special Representative was confident that the Council would mainstream the rights of the child throughout its work and looked forward to working with it to move the process forward.

In the interactive dialogue, speakers said the issue of violence against children deserved the immediate attention of the international community, as violence against children was not justifiable and could be prevented. Children were the future, and Governments and civil society had made tremendous efforts to create a world fit for growth, but the violation of child rights was pervasive throughout the world. Among questions raised was could the Special Representative elaborate on how she saw the role of children and young people in the development of policies and activities at the regional level; whether an international database would be useful in ensuring that analyses and good practices were accessible to all; and whether the Special Representative was going to pay particular attention to girls, who were often victims of many forms of violence, stemming from harmful traditional practices.

Speaking this afternoon on violence against children were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Russian Federation, European Union, Brazil, Thailand, China, Colombia, and the Republic of the Congo.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue on human rights defenders and on freedom of religion and belief.

Margaret Sekaggya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in concluding remarks, said participants had debated who human rights defenders were, and said that the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders provided information in that regard. Providing recommendations to improve the enjoyment of human rights defenders, Ms. Sekaggya highlighted the importance of providing a conducive environment. Ms. Sekaggya further emphasized the importance of cooperation with human rights defenders; they needed to participate in programmes aimed at their protection and in devising measures aimed at their protection. Human rights defenders could also be assisted by tackling impunity in crimes against them. Finding resources to remove cultural customs that were detrimental to their work was also essential, and foreign funding was crucial in that regard since many countries were unable to fund their civil society organizations.

Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of religion or belief, in concluding remarks, said she had always stood for consensus, but had drawn a distinction between a consensus that promoted human rights, and a compromise that undermined these, particularly in the context of freedom of religion or belief. Most importantly, what had to be looked at were the taboos on the mandate that had generated self-censorship and thus the questions of freedom of religion and freedom of expression complemented each other, strengthened each other, and overlapped, whilst there remained a tension between the two. She regretted she had not been able to effectively communicate to the Member States of the Human Rights Council the desperate pleas she heard from people on the ground who were asking for help, and who attached great hopes to this august body. The issue was to build political will first, resisting the temptation to politicise religion, and ensure the Council gave priority to international human rights norms above all else, ideally through a frank and open dialogue within its walls.

During the interactive debate on human rights defenders, speakers said, among other things, that States should protect human rights defenders in compliance with internationally agreed human rights standards. Without measures of protection human rights defenders would be vulnerable to attacks and violence, especially in places where impunity was allowed to run rampant. The report was the acknowledgement that the international community had made vis-à-vis the extremely grave situation in various areas of the world. One could not invoke customs, traditions and moral obligations to not fulfil one's obligations with regard to human rights defenders. Some speakers said that it was Governments who had the primary responsibility and obligation to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms; the State alone was responsible for the security of all citizens, including that of human rights defenders, and to promote and enhance freedom of religion or belief.

On freedom of religion or belief, speakers said that by not exclusively focusing on the religious aspect of the identity of an individual, group or society, intolerance could be prevented by making other links more evident. More education and the strengthening of the culture of peaceful dialogue were key measures to combat the rising trend of intolerance based on religion and belief. Utmost importance should be given to preliminary signs of discrimination and violence committed in the name of religion or belief. That would contribute to preventing human rights violations and establish a climate of religious tolerance.

Speaking this afternoon on human rights defenders and on freedom of religion or belief were the representatives of the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Algeria, Armenia, Nigeria, Belgium, Chile, Iran, Republic of Korea, Syria, Egypt, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kenya, Uzbekistan, Palestine and Morocco.

The following national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations also took the floor: African Network of National Human Rights Institutions, International Service for Human Rights, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Conectas Direitos Humanos, North-South XXI, Franciscans International, Human Rights First, and Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy.

Speaking in rights of reply were Armenia, Iraq, Colombia, Iran, and Azerbaijan.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Friday, 12 March, when it will conclude its interactive dialogue on violence against children, hear the presentation of the report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and hold an interactive dialogue on it, then hold a general debate under item three on its agenda, namely the protection and promotion of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Interactive Dialogue on Human Rights Defenders and on Freedom of Religion or Belief

ROBERT-JAN SIEBEN (Netherlands) said the thematic report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief focused on the prevention of religious intolerance. The Netherlands believed that any prevention strategy should entail efforts to highlight that people had multiple identities. In fact, by not exclusively focusing on the religious aspect of the identity of an individual, group or society, intolerance could be prevented by making other links more evident. In that sense, did Ms. Jahangir consider the concept of multiple identities useful when discussing ways and means to diffuse discrimination or violence on the grounds, or in the name, of religion or belief? The Netherlands was further of the view that human rights defenders were of vital importance. Without them, many of today’s declarations and resolutions would remain a dead letter tomorrow. States should therefore protect human rights defenders in compliance with internationally agreed human rights standards. What possibilities did the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders see for States to assure that human rights defenders could carry out their peaceful and legitimate activities without fearing prosecution?

KSHENUKAN SENEWIRATNE (Sri Lanka) said with regard to the alleged violations referred to in the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders' report, the responses of Sri Lanka were reiterated. The relevant measures to prevent violations were in place, and the Government of Sri Lanka would continue to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards any individual engaging in such violations. The very amorphous nomenclature of "human rights defenders" was used very loosely to encompass just about every form of activity however distantly associated with the spheres of the protection and promotion of human rights. Persons presenting themselves as such and making these assertions for collateral purposes of political gain in pursuit of extraneous agendas should be discouraged. With regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the majority of people in Sri Lanka supported the view that religious sensitivities should not be interfered with, in keeping with Sri Lanka's constitutional guarantees of thought, conscience and religion, and the freedom to practice one's religion. The relevant recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur were being taken cognisance of.

ANIZAN SITI HAJAR ADNIN (Malaysia) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and belief and the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders for their presentations and reports. Malaysia welcomed efforts by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion to focus on obstacles and to underline the importance of early warning signs of discrimination and violence on grounds of or in the name of religion or belief. Having experienced turmoil, Malaysia reaffirmed the importance of protecting all religious sites. It reaffirmed that more education and the strengthening of the culture of peaceful dialogue were key measures to combat the rising trend of intolerance based on religion and belief. Without measures of protection human rights defenders would be vulnerable to attacks and violence especially in places where impunity was allowed to run rampant. Malaysia was sceptical about the potential effectiveness of the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations in that regard, put forth on a selective basis.

MOHAMED EL AMINE BENCHERIF (Algeria) said Algeria accorded significant importance to human rights defenders, whom it considered actors in the promotion of human rights. However, Algeria was of the view that it was Governments who had the primary responsibility and obligation to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms; the State alone was responsible for the security of all citizens, including that of human rights defenders. Turning to the work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the delegation said Algeria was thankful that Ms. Jahangir had discussed the question of discrimination and violence committed for and in the name of religion, which was a timely issue. The delegation further underscored that the Constitution of Algeria expressly guaranteed the inviolability of freedom of thought, belief and religion. Algeria shared the view of the Special Rapporteur that utmost importance should be given to preliminary signs of discrimination and violence committed in the name of religion or belief. That would contribute to preventing human rights violations and establish a climate of religious tolerance.

SATENIK ABGARIAN (Armenia) said at the outset it was important to note that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for freedom of religion or belief had always been and remained of particular importance. Armenia subscribed to the Special Rapporteur's view of studying the early warning signs of discrimination and violence on the grounds of, or in the name of, religion or belief, and regretfully underlined that practices of gross violations of this freedom were continuously applied in different countries. In her report the Special Rapporteur expressed her concern about persistent negative stereotyping in public speeches by elected or other officials of targeted groups, as well as frequent attacks on places of worship and the desecration of cemeteries. Armenia attached great importance to religious and cultural diversity and had always advocated protection of all minorities in the country.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria) said Nigeria commended the considerable work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Nigeria was aware of the concerns highlighted and had began to address them. The Government had never faltered in its commitment to the tenets of freedom of consciousness, religion, belief and peaceful coexistence. Given that it was a multi-religious and an ethnically diverse country, the fact that religious tolerance pervaded in its national life was an attestation to the true state of affairs. Violence was not a regular feature between and among different religious groups. The Government could not but be even handed in dealing with religions. The underlying causes of recent unrest in Jos were largely due to poverty, illiteracy and political exploitation, often given religious colouration. The Government had arrested alleged perpetrators, who would be prosecuted in due course. It stressed that religious discrimination had never been a policy of any Government in Nigeria. People were allowed to erect religious places of worship wherever they wished, within the law. Nigeria assured the Council that the Government would continue to extend its cooperation to the work of the United Nations system.

XAVIER BAERT (Belgium) said Belgium accorded much importance to the role played by human rights defenders, as highlighted by the adoption of several resolutions on that subject by the two Chambers of its Parliament. Belgium was concerned by the dangers and difficulties that human rights defenders were confronted with as they carried out their activities. That particularly applied to female human rights defenders, those working for the rights of sexual minorities, as well as human rights defenders who worked on the protection of natural resources. Further of concern to Belgium was the harassment to which human rights defenders in Colombia were subjected to, as well as the situation of human rights defenders in Kyrgyzstan. Belgium had also closely followed the impressive work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. With regard to that mandate, Belgium was particularly concerned about the discrimination that religious non-Shiite groups suffered in Iran. Baha’is were in fact victims of arbitrary detention, confiscation of their property or expulsion from universities. The precarious situation of the Christian minority in Iraq was also of concern to Belgium.

VICENTE ZERAN (Chile) said Chile agreed that despite the establishment of regional, national and international mechanisms, human rights defenders still suffered from harassment, threats and assassinations, and it was the duty of States to ensure they could carry out their activities in an unfettered way. Chile, because of its historical experience, considered the role of human rights defenders particularly important in the protection and promotion of human rights, and was aware of the difficulties they faced in this regard, in particular threats to their own lives. The report showed that the situation of human rights defenders was extremely grave in various areas of the world. One could not invoke customs, traditions and moral obligations to not fulfil one's obligations with regard to human rights defenders. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the report contained very valuable information. Chile expressed its concern on negative portrayals of religion, and defended the freedom of religion or belief, which should be the right to have a religion, change one's belief, or not have one - this was a freedom linked to a basic right, namely to express one's thoughts without exceptions except for legitimate restrictions contained in the Charter on Human Rights, which contained the only limits to this.

MOJTABA ALIBABAIE (Iran) said one of the remaining issues in the scope of human rights defenders was the lack of legally accepted international definitions of the term. Although the need for crafting such a definition had been emphasized continuously in different Council sessions, no initiation had been set up in that regard. It should always be recognized that human rights defenders had to work within the legal and constitutional framework of their own country. Iran invited the Special Rapporteur on that issue to carry out a study on the negative effect of foreign incentives on the independence and position of human rights defenders, which damaged their credibility, reputation and their important social role. Iran had seen an ever-increasing trend in Islamophobia. Had any measures been taken in that regard so far? It also noted that the defamation of religions was very important and that the Special Rapporteur should take it seriously. Iran invited the Special Rapporteur to study the correlation between freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs.

WIE-YOUNG HA (Republic of Korea) noted with interest the minimum guidelines the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders had developed with regard to programmes for the protection of human rights defenders. The Republic of Korea would nevertheless appreciate learning more about the nature of the early warning system, particularly how to make such a system effective. The focused approach of the draft resolution on human rights defenders, which built upon the report of the Special Rapporteur and the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, was also appreciated. Regarding the work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Republic of Korea believed that serious attention should be given to early warning signs in order to preemptively address problems stemming from religious intolerance. The significance of inter-religious dialogue and youth education on religious tolerance and diversity should also be reiterated in relation to that subject. As part of its efforts in that field, the Republic of Korea had hosted the fifth Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Interfaith Dialogue in Seoul last September. Could the Special Rapporteur also provide some outstanding examples that demonstrated the role of women in inter-religious dialogue, the Republic of Korea asked?

ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) said it was important as mentioned by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to give the necessary attention to early-warning signs, and prevention was very important to create the necessary environment of religious tolerance. The role played by the State and religious leaders in this context deserved study and consideration. Continued discrimination based on religion or belief was a cause for continued tension. Addressing bigotry was more difficult than addressing incitement. There was still a lack of clarity on the visions and objectives of the mandate - the close link between defamation of religions or intolerance and hatred was a matter that deserved further attention and frankness in the framework of the mandate. Incitement had a great role in terrorising religious minorities and preventing them from exercising freedom of religion or belief on a wide scale in Western communities. Syria wished to know the opinion of the Special Rapporteur when it came to prohibiting the construction of minarets and discrimination on expressing religion such as through garb and religious symbols in public and private places. The State held the main responsibility to promote and enhance freedom of religion or belief.

OMAR SHALABI (Egypt) thanked both Special Rapporteurs for their presentations. On the report relating to religious freedom and belief, Egypt agreed with elements of the report but disagreed with other aspects. The report did not give a balanced account, including on situations of armed conflict. Would the Special Rapporteur look into profiling faced by human rights defenders due to their ethnic or religious background? Turning to Ms. Sekaggya’s report, Egypt could not agree more on her analysis of early warning signs to discrimination. Egypt was especially concerned about the banning of minarets, which was a sign of anti-Islam sentiment. Egypt appreciated Ms. Jahangir’s statement in that regard. The Special Rapporteur had also taken up a discussion on violence in the name of religion. However, it had hoped that the non-exhaustive list of incidents would have been a bit more diverse. How could freedom of religion be protected if secularism was so stretched? Was it not time to study freedom of religion fought in the name of secularism? Egypt believed that the next Special Rapporteur had big shoes to fill.

LARISA BELSKAYA (Belarus) said the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, had delivered excellent work throughout her mandate. Belarus shared her view that national legislation that was in accordance with international standards in this field was the most important measure to promote tolerance in society. The Government was well aware that the views of various religious groups needed to be borne in mind when devising policies. To that end, it had established a specific council in order to promote the exchange of views among various religious groups. Belarus also supported the view of the Special Rapporteur that establishing an inter-confessional dialogue was the most important component in moving forward the dialogue between religions at a global level. At a national level, Belarus supported a number of initiatives that were aimed at establishing tolerance and mutual respect for people of other beliefs. Belarus was also of the view that the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur would help to continue overcoming obstacles to freedom of religion or belief in various countries.

HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan) said that in her last general report, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief touched upon a number of important issues, referring to persistent negative stereotyping in public speeches as one of the early warning signs of discrimination and violence on the grounds of or in the name of religion. Political purposes as well as unawareness and lack of knowledge constituted the main reasons for the development of this negative trend. Discrimination and violence in the name of religion represented another challenge which was tarnishing the image of religions and sometimes further increased irrational fear. States should not only punish the perpetrators of violations of the freedom of religion, but also devise specific preventive action to avoid their recurrence in future. The measures to be taken by States to raise awareness about religious diversity also needed due attention. The Government of Azerbaijan had managed to effectively ensure the realization of the freedom of religion, and one of the priorities of its foreign policy was the promotion of intercultural dialogue.

MARYANN NJAU KIMANI (Kenya) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders for her report, which reaffirmed her support to the work and the role of human rights defenders in realizing human rights. In that regard, the Government of Kenya had actively engaged civil society members who worked towards promoting and protecting human rights. The Government had partnered up with development bodies to operationalize a non-state actors fund to institute reforms in the legal and justice sectors. Kenya thanked the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, stating that it identified with her analysis on early warning signs of discrimination.

BADRIDDIN OBIDOV (Uzbekistan) said Uzbekistan had regularly provided replies and information in response to the appeals and allegations of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. While that was documented in the report, the delegation emphasized that the content of that report, especially the comments and observations contained therein, did not reflect a transparent and balanced approach in the preparation, albeit it being such an important document. Uzbekistan further hoped that the Special Rapporteur would give more space to the identification of concrete and effective strategies in order to better fulfill major tasks in accordance with her mandate through a truly universal approach that avoided selectivity and the use of unverified information. The delegation underscored that Uzbekistan paid attention to the participation of civil society organizations in the fulfillment of its national and international obligations; those organizations had notably participated in a direct manner in the preparation of the country’s national Universal Periodic Review report.

IMAD ZUHAIRI (Palestine) said the efforts of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had resulted in excellent work on protecting these rights. There were a range of Islamic, Christian and other sites in Al-Quds, the city which had suffered from the occupying power, Israel, which had continued to violate fundamental rights, by, for example, including Abraham's shrine, Bethlehem and the Old City Walls on the list of its cultural heritage. These were Arab, Islamic, and Christian sites, not part of the occupying power. Israel also continued to dig and excavate under Islamic and Christian sites in the Holy City of Jerusalem, seeking to Judasize these areas. Apart from this, Israel also continued to put obstacles before the freedom of movement of Islamic and Christian worshippers, as well as before the clergy, requiring a quick reaction by the international community to halt these practices and oblige the occupying power to respect international resolutions on the cultural and religious history of the city. However long it took and whatever different violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people took place, they would remain determined to stay on their land and return to their homes and property, including religious sites in historic parts of Palestine, and Israel would be witness to that determination for ever.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said Morocco was the initiator of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders with Norway. The mission of human rights defenders applied everywhere. Since States had duties with regard to respect for human rights, human rights defenders also had a duty to respect the legislation and legal framework where they exercised their mission. That framework was very important. The same applied to accountability. Human rights defenders had obligations and had to be accountable. They were not supra actors suspended in space. They were actors who had to account for their activities. Morocco hoped the resolution that would be adopted would highlight the duty and accountability of human rights defenders.

YOUSSEF SATANE, of (Network of African National Human Rights Institutions), said the Network considered the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders a cornerstone for the efforts in terms of the promotion and protection of the rights of human rights defenders. States needed to develop and improve programmes and strategies aimed at ensuring the physical protection for human rights defenders in the respective countries. The Network also welcomed the appreciation the Special Rapporteur had extended to the African Network of National Human Rights Institutions in her report. The associated organizations of the African Network could in fact be powerful allies in the fight for the protection of the rights of human rights defenders. The Network had attempted to contribute to that by a number of activities, including the organization of workshops. The Network would continue encouraging African national human rights institutions to disseminate the Declaration and examine complaints filed by human rights defenders.

KATRINE THOMASEN, of International Service for Human Rights, said 11 years after the adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, these defenders continued to face threats, intimidation, arrests, violence and harassment in all regions because of their legitimate and peaceful work for the protection and promotion of human rights. The stigmatisation and misrepresentation of human rights defenders, coupled with the failure to recognize their valuable role in protecting human rights, contributed to their insecurity, and legitimised attacks against them. How could the mandate assist States in ensuring compliance with the Declaration; what were specific areas where State cooperation was currently lacking and what steps could be taken by States to strengthen this; to what did the Special Rapporteur attribute the drop in responses by States and what was the impact of non-responsiveness by States on the protection of human rights defenders; and how did the mandate foresee addressing protection gaps in Asia and the Middle East, the International Service for Human Rights asked?

EMERLYNN GIL, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), in a joint statement with Asian Legal Resource Centre; and International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, appreciated the efforts and insightful analysis of both Special Rapporteurs. The Asian Forum was concerned that one early warning sign was manifest in States adopting domestic legislation which was contradictory to international laws, and sometimes even inconsistent with their own Constitutions. The Asian Forum congratulated Indonesia after its 1965 law of blasphemy was contested in the Constitutional Court, and it urged others to follow Indonesia by addressing those issues in a democratic manner. The Asian Forum would appreciate if the Special Rapporteur could elaborate on how States could ensure the security of human rights defenders in the lead up to various elections in Asia soon.

GUSTAVO GALLON, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, invited the Council to pay particular attention to the recommendation that the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders had made to the Colombian Government. Ms. Sekaggya had, in her report on the visit to Colombia, encouraged the Government to recognize the legitimate work of human rights defenders by a decree. The Colombian Commission of Jurists also drew attention to the violations of the rights of human rights defenders in Colombia, as discussed in the Special Rapporteur’s report, which included assassinations, arbitrary detention and defamation, among others, perpetrated against indigenous leaders, Afro-Colombians, activists working on issues of internally displaced persons, journalists, and students, among others.

BRUNO SOUZA, of Conectas Direitos Humanos, said he was a human rights defender in the Brazilian state of Esprito Santo, and had been living under threat after denouncing gross and systematic violations in the prison system. He had been seeking protection from the State and federal programmes for human rights defenders for the last eight months; sadly, these programmes were still facing challenges to protect threatened defenders and to promote investigative procedures in a prompt and effective manner. To strengthen these programmes it was important to develop an adequate legal framework and resources, and ensure that the federative structure did not become an obstacle to protect and guarantee defender's rights. Brazil should take the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders into account in order to improve its human rights defenders protection programmes.

MOHAMMED EL-MUSTAPHA KABBAJ, of North South XXI, affirmed that freedom of religion or belief was one of the principal elements in the promotion of human rights and in the protection of social peace and coexistence between religions. North South XXI regretted the recent referendum held in Switzerland which decided to forbid building new minarets and stated that freedom of religion or belief should not become the victim of the highest bidder by fanatics who were hostile to foreigners. North-South XXI praised all who had rejected that decision, including the Christian Swiss Council.

ELIN MARTINEZ, of Franciscans International, in a joint statement with Dominicans for Justice and Peace (Order of Preachers), said the Human Rights Council should continue to uphold the principle that international human rights standards did not and should not protect religions per se, but rather individuals and groups from discrimination and harassment on the basis of their religions. There was concern at the increasing incidents of communal violence targeting religious minorities. The existence in many countries of anti-conversion and blasphemy laws had been found to propagate violence against religious minorities, through unsubstantiated allegations that led to human rights violations against them. The Special Rapporteur should make additional recommendations on better ways to ensure that the root causes of such violence were dealt with by States. Religious education was also a contentious issue. Treating the root causes of discrimination of religious minorities within schooling should receive greater attention, and education should be used as an opportunity to tackle the root causes of discrimination from an early age.

ANDREW HUDSON, of Human Rights First, in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues - FIDH, said Human Rights First noted the growing trend to de-legitimise human rights defenders, and was also concerned that States increasingly resorted to legal actions to violate the rights of defenders. Could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on laws other than ambiguous security laws that were used to persecute defenders? The Colombian Government should implement the recommendations issued by the Special Rapporteur as soon as possible. Human Rights First was also alarmed by the number of States that had persistently denied country visits to the Special Rapporteur, including Belarus, Chad, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Tunisia, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. They were also concerned that States only responded to 90 of the 266 communications that the Rapporteur sent last year, and urged all Member States to accept all outstanding country visit requests by the Special Rapporteur, as well as to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and implement her recommendations.

RACHEL BESSONET, of Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, said the Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy fully supported the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir. The introduction of religion into public life created a situation of communities being outlawed and targeted. The Centre appreciated, as the report stated, that education was important. Freedom of religion and belief alongside freedom of choice and expression could only occur once the demarcation between the Church and State had been strictly enforced.

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights Defenders and on Freedom of Religion or Belief

MARGARET SEKAGGYA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in concluding remarks, noted that participants had debated who human rights defenders were, and said that the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders provided information in that regard. On recommendations to improve the enjoyment of human rights defenders, Ms. Sekaggya highlighted the importance of providing a conducive environment. For example, accusing human rights defenders of being terrorists or guerillas stigmatized human rights defenders and negatively impacted their work. Defamation laws and restricting civil society organizations were also of concern and could be addressed by Government officials making public statements in that regard. Government officials should accept the role of human rights defenders. Local legislation should also take into account international legislation since overriding the latter was detrimental to human rights standards. Ms. Sekaggya further emphasized the importance of cooperation with human rights defenders; they needed to participate in programmes aimed at their protection and in devising measures aimed at their protection. Human rights defenders could also be assisted by tackling impunity in crimes against them. Finding resources to remove cultural customs that were detrimental to their work was also essential, and foreign funding was crucial in that regard since many countries were unable to fund their civil society organizations. Training security forces on the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders would further contribute that law enforcement staff behaved appropriately. In closing, Ms. Sekaggya urged those 22 States which had not yet responded to her visit requests to do so.

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief, in concluding remarks on the interactive dialogue, said she was grateful for the appreciation shown by Member States for her work on the mandate, and welcomed the frank farewell messages, acknowledging that once again, they agreed to disagree. She had always stood for consensus, but had drawn a distinction between a consensus that promoted human rights, and a compromise that undermined these rights, particularly in the context of freedom of religion or belief. On what were the gaps in the mandate, it was a rich mandate, and many things needed more focus, as she had not been able to give them the focus and attention they deserved. There were challenges posed by emerging religious and belief communities that were now beginning to assert themselves, and Governments were reluctant to give them a place in society. Most importantly, what had to be looked at were the taboos on the mandate that had generated self-censorship and thus the question of freedom of religion and freedom of expression complemented each other, strengthened each other, and overlapped, whilst there remained a tension between the two. When talking about human rights, it was the rights of individuals, rather than the rights of religions. On the rights of women within religious minorities, they suffered on two counts - first in their communities, where religious minorities jealously guarded what they called "their own culture", sometimes to the detriment of women; and in society as a whole. She regretted she had not been able to effectively communicate to the Member States of the Human Rights Council the desperate pleas she heard from people on the ground who were asking for help, and who attached great hopes to this august body. The issue was to build political will first, resisting the temptation to politicise religion, and ensure the Council gave priority to international human rights norms above all else, ideally through a frank and open dialogue within its walls.

Document on Violence against Children

The annual report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, Marta Santos Pais (A/HRC/13/46) highlights the need to accelerate progress in key strategic areas and underscores that, in discharging her mandate, the Special Representative will particularly focus on the development of a strategy on violence against children; the introduction of an explicit national legal ban on all forms of violence; as well as on the analysis and dissemination of relevant national data.

Presentation of Report on Violence against Children

MARTA SANTOS PAIS, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, said her report reviewed key initiatives promoted and presented priority areas for the work ahead. The Special Representative acted as a global independent advocate in favour of the protection of children from all forms of violence. Her mandate had been framed by the United Nations study on violence against children and its strategic recommendations and was embedded in sound human rights normative frameworks. The recommendations of that study could ensure that violence against children could evolve from being a concern of a few into a priority for all. Violence had a pervasive and long lasting impact on children and a tremendous cost for society. Addressing violence against children was urgent. The Special Representative said she was committed to three critical goals: developing a comprehensive national strategy to prevent and respond to all forms of violence against children; introducing national legislation to prohibit all violence against them; and promoting a sound system of data and research on violence against children.

Those were three core building blocks of any effective national child protection strategy. That strategy had to be mainstreamed so that it was not just a footnote but also a priority. It had to be coordinated at the highest level by a focal point. It was important to have a transparent process to monitor progress and impact of strategy. High political will should be maintained to move that agenda forward. Legislation promoted conflict resolution without resorting to violence. It was critical for victims and for enhancing the chances of children reporting violence. Progress had taken place in law reform in many countries. Violence remained hidden, condoned by society and there was not enough information on its magnitude across societies. Without good data, planning was compromised and effective policy-making was hampered. Urgent action was required. In that regard, there was an important basis to move forward.

Ms. Santos Pais said that by listening to children’s views and perspectives, States gained a better understanding of the hidden face of violence and its root causes; they became better equipped to develop child sensitive mechanisms for counselling, recovery and reintegration of child victims. More importantly, States could refine preventive tools and child-friendly empowerment tools, thus giving them confidence to report cases without fear. States could also support families and professionals in their efforts to prevent and address violence. The Council had been clear in its commitment to integrate the rights of the child in its agenda and in the work of human rights mechanisms. The Special Rapporteur was confident that the Council would mainstream the rights of the child throughout its work and looked forward to working with it moving this process forward.

Interactive Dialogue on Violence against Children

SAEED SARWAR (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children had attended a conference in Egypt where the Organization on the Islamic Conference had called for a greater compliance of States with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That issue deserved the immediate attention of the international community as violence against children was not justifiable and could prevented. The Organization of the Islamic Conference stood ready to play its role and took note of the three priorities the Special Representative had set out in the report. As the Organization on the Islamic Conference had always underscored the need to avoid duplication within the United Nations system, it would like to hear from the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children how she intended to discharge her mandate in view of relevant mandates and mechanisms that already existed.

SERGEY KONDRATIEV (Russian Federation) said yesterday, during the discussion on the rights of the child, the Russian Federation drew attention to the problem of violence against children and children who were affected by international adoptions. Such children required particular attention from the international human rights structures, including the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. There was a need to work out additional effective measures to increase the level of protection for such children against violence and cruel treatment, but the authorities of the State of origin did not have the ability to influence what happened to the child when adopted by parents in another country, and consular officials had no access to adoptive families. The authorities of the receiving State were often not in a position to provide the necessary control over the living conditions of the child and receiving family. What additional measures could the Special Representative suggest which could be implemented for children who were subjects of international adoptions, the Russian Federation asked?

NICOLE RECKINGER (European Union) warmly congratulated the Special Representative of the secretary-General on violence against children on her recent appointment. The European Union thanked her for her informative presentation. Noting that she had gained substantial cross regional support to keep the momentum in implementing the United Nations study on violence against children, what role would the Council play in the implementation of the recommendations of that study? How did the Special Representative assess ways to ensure firm support for her mandate? On progress in the three key areas, what role did the Special Representative see for herself, in terms of advising Governments on comprehensive strategies on violence prevention and response? Could the Special Representative elaborate on how she saw the role of children and young people in the development of policies and activities at the regional level?

MARCIA USTRA SOARES (Brazil) said to tackle the major vulnerabilities affecting children and adolescents, and to fulfill its obligations under the Millennium Development Goals, Brazil’s President Lula had launched the commitment for the reduction of violence against children and adolescents initiative in 2007. That initiative included the implementation of actions aimed at improving promotion actions between the Government of Brazil and local authorities. President Lula had further approved a new national Law on Adoption which, in conformity with guidelines for the care of children, recognized children’s right to family and community life. The Government also implemented a programme in collaboration with the United Nations Children's Fund, among other partners, to estimate the risks of adolescent assignations in favelas. That programme had been implemented in cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants and had highlighted that more than 33,000 adolescent lives would be lost by homicides in Brazil until 2011 if conditions remained as they were today. The delegation concluded by underscoring its support for the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child by the Human Rights Council.

NYNKE B. WIJMENGA (Netherlands) said the report clearly set out the way ahead in combating violence against children. In bilateral consultations, the Netherlands would strongly promote the need to issue a standing invitation to the Special Representative, and would urge other countries to do so. The Netherlands strongly supported the mandate of the Special Representative. Implementation and monitoring of strategies was key to ensuring prevention and response, and the Netherlands asked how the Special Representative would assist States in ensuring that data collection and investigation took place. Would an international database be useful in ensuring that analyses and good practices were accessible to all, and what measures would she use to bring this about, the Netherlands asked?

ELLEN VAN UYTVANCK (Belgium) congratulated the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children. Cutting across culture, social status and ethnic origin, violence against children represented a particularly widespread violation of children’s rights. It was no coincidence that the area of “all forms of violence against children” had been selected as first priority area of the European Union guidelines for the promotion and protection of the rights of the child. Belgium commended the Special Representative for her visions and priority areas as well as the strategies she intended to use to achieve progress in implementing her mandate. It asked if she was going to pay particular attention to girls, who were often victims of many forms of violence, stemming from harmful traditional practices.

EKSIRI PINTARUCHI (Thailand) said the Convention on the Rights of the Child had virtually achieved universal ratification but millions of children around the world were still subject to violence in various forms and settings. There was therefore a need to redouble international efforts to translate international commitments into concrete action at the national and local levels. In addressing violence against children, there was a particular need to look at the conditions in each country on an individual basis. Most importantly, there must be a strong sense of ownership and commitment by countries in their efforts to address violence against children. Thailand attached great importance to cooperation and exchange of best practices. It also noted with satisfaction that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children had participated in various regional conferences to raise awareness on that issue and promote cooperation at the national level. However, Thailand noted that she had not yet engaged in any activities in Asia, and it hoped that she would participate in conferences and workshops in Asia in the future.

XIANG XIN (China) said the report of the Special Representative highlighted that violence against children caused serious physical and psychological harm, and called upon the international community to halt this phenomenon and create a conducive and harmonious environment. Children were the future, and Governments and civil society had made tremendous efforts to create a world fit for growth, but the violation of child rights was pervasive throughout the world. The international community should join hands towards the eradication of this phenomenon. All States should improve domestic legislation, explicitly forbidding and punishing violence against children, and increase aid to victims, in efforts to enhance protection of children and prevent acts of violence at their roots.

BEATRIZ LINARES CANTILLO (Colombia) said Colombia’s norms and laws carried severe punishment for those who committed sexual violence against children. However, there were no norms or laws against physical and economic violence against children. Children had said that the single place where they felt most vulnerable was at home among family who did not consider them as subjects of rights. In order to be able to deal with all of these other forms of violence, the Government would like to support the approval process of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would allow individual complaints by children.

Mr. MASSAMBA (Republic of Congo) said the Republic of the Congo noted with satisfaction the partnership that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children had initiated with other mandated holders and specialized agencies of the United Nations that worked on the rights of the child. The Republic of the Congo encouraged the mandate holder to maintain that impetus and to strengthen her collaboration with the African Union Commission. The 2009 celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child had provided the opportunity to envisage urgent measures to improve the rights of the child as violence against children and ignorance of their rights remained widely spread. Strengthening State mechanisms must be given particular importance, and violence against children in war, particularly girl children, must be severely punished. The Republic of the Congo had in place a draft law on the indigenous people, including on children and particularly girls. The Republic of the Congo reiterated its commitment to implement its international obligations with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights in the country.

Right of Reply

VAHEH GEVORGYAN (Armenia), speaking in a right of reply, said that it was sad that Azerbaijan had chosen to politicize the destruction of the Kashtkars of Nakitchevan by linking it to the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. The destruction of religious sites in a region that had never known armed conflict was a matter of religious hatred, a xenophobic attitude and a desire to erase all traces of Armenian presence in Nakitchevan, showing that these acts of vandalism were part of a deliberate policy. Armenia wished merely for the protection of these sites, but no UNESCO or Council of Europe mission had been able to enter the region. Armenia, on the other hand, had received missions of inquiry into the destruction of religious sites in Nagorno-Karabakh during the conflict, which missions had noted that several Muslim cemeteries were well looked after.

KAMIL HASHIM (Iraq), speaking in a right of reply, said Belgium had referred to the repression of Christians in Iraq. That was not accurate. Terrorist aggressions were targeting Christians in Iraq. It was unjust to hold the Government responsible for them in that way. A few days ago Iraq put the finishing touches to legislative elections and United Nations representatives were witness to that. It was now working on finding solutions to all difficulties.

ANGELINO GARZON (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply, reiterated Colombia’s support to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya. Colombia was willing to implement the recommendations made by Ms. Sekaggya, which were considered instruments to improve the situation of human rights defenders as well as a complement to actions that had been implemented before the visit of that mandate holder to Colombia. Nevertheless, the delegation disagreed that respecting the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur should be applied as a prerequisite for the continuation of the Government’s National Plan of Action.

MESBAH ANSARI (Iran), speaking in a right to reply, said in today's statements, the representatives of Spain for the European Union, United Kingdom, France, Canada and Ireland had referred to the situation of the Baha'is in Iran. Baha'is in Iran enjoyed citizenship rights as any other Iranians. Given the sectarian beliefs of these persons, and the close collaboration with Israel by their religious leaders, the religion was not recognized by any Muslim State, a position on which there was consensus within the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The investigations had indicated that these individuals played a major role in crimes, creating a covert and iron-fisted organization in order to control the socio-economic activities of the members of the sect. With regard to referring to these persons as human rights defenders, they had been involved in incitement to illegal and extremist actions, disseminating false information and directly contributing to the escalation of riots. All arrested were treated in conformity with international standards, and after preliminary investigations, the cases had been referred to the court, and hearings had been open and held in the presence of the attorneys of the accused and the media. Iran rejected the unsubstantiated allegations, and encouraged a constructive approach to discuss the situation of human rights.

HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply, stressed that a few days ago, when the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons had been discussed, it did not look at the root causes of the problem in Azerbaijan. Yet, today, Armenia raised that issue again. Azerbaijan simply rejected this issue and the false accusations against it. Armenia had no moral right to raise that issue and to accuse others in international arenas. Armenia had itself committed ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan. When reality did not correspond with a dream one had no other choice but to make up the past. It was ironic that the aggressive State blamed the victim. Armenia had referred to Christian sites. Azerbaijan did not distinguish between religions. It was not a religious conflict. It was the occupation by one State of another.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/026E