COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH MANDATE HOLDERS ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES AND ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Chair/Rapporteur on the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
Jeremy Sarkin, Chair-Rapporteur on the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said that he regretted that enforced disappearances continued to be used by some States as a tool to deal with situations of conflict or internal unrest and urged all States to take specific measures to address and prevent a pattern of threats, intimidation and reprisals against victims of enforced disappearances. The Working Group urged Timor-Leste to do more to ensure the right to truth, justice and reparation for disappeared persons and their families. Mexico had made efforts to combat enforced disappearances and address the challenges posed by the complex public security situation in the context of the fight against organized crime. In the Congo, the Working Group encouraged the Government to continue to seek the truth concerning the fate of all those alleged to have been victims of enforced disappearances in the country.
Heiner Bielefeldt, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said that freedom of religion or belief was a universal human right and noted that some States seemed to limit freedom of religion or belief to a given list of religious options, while in others only members of monotheistic religions could fully enjoy their rights. Some States required registration procedures as a means to limit the right to freedom of religion or belief. Many States provided for specific status positions to be accorded to religious or belief communities including an official State religion, which in some cases was a part of the State’s policy to foster national identity. However, experience showed that such policies harbored serious risks of discrimination against minorities, immigrants or new religious movements. The three dimensions of “recognition” had different implications for the role of the State in the recognition of procedures and Mr. Bielefeldt urged States to ensure that those procedures were quick, transparent, fair, inclusive and non-discriminatory.
Timor-Leste, Mexico, Congo and Paraguay spoke as concerned countries. The national human rights institutions of Timor-Leste and Mexico provided statements. The Republic of Moldova will speak as a concerned country at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 6 March.
Timor-Leste, speaking as a concerned country, said that Timor-Leste was working closely with the Government of Indonesia to ascertain the whereabouts of persons who disappeared in 1999 and had taken steps to implement the many recommendations contained in the report of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances on Timor-Leste, including the establishment of a commission for disappeared persons.
Mexico, speaking as a concerned country, said that the observations of the Working Group maintained balance amongst positive actions, progress made and challenges facing the country. The Government reiterated its absolute readiness for a follow up to the recommendations by the Working Group and informed the Council of the measures undertaken so far, including legislative modifications to define military jurisdiction which could not try cases against civilians.
Congo, speaking as a concerned country, said that Congo remained aware of the recommendations of the Working Group and was undertaking reforms of the criminal code to meet those recommendations. A training programme for police officers had also been created to ensure they were able to fulfill their duties.
Paraguay, speaking as a concerned country, said that Paraguay’s constitution fully recognized the freedom of religion and belief. The State had adopted secular principles and provided the conditions for each person to practice their religion freely. The Government was working to ensure that the rights of indigenous people to engage in their spiritual belief were protected.
Belarus and China spoke in a right of reply.
The next meeting of the Council will be on Tuesday, 6 March at 9 a.m., when it will continue with the interactive dialogue with the Chair/Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. This will be followed by a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food and on adequate housing.
Documentation
The Council has before it the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (A/HRC/19/58/Rev.1)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concerning its mission to Timor-Leste (A/HRC/19/58/Add.1)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concerning its mission to Mexico (A/HRC/19/58/Add.2)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concerning its mission to Congo (A/HRC/19/58/Add.3)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concerning its follow-up to country missions (A/HRC/19/58/Add.4)
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/19/60)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief concerning his mission to Paraguay (A/HRC/19/60/Add.1)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief concerning his mission to the Republic of Moldova (A/HRC/19/60/Add.2)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief concerning comments by the State on the report of the Special Rapporteur on his mission to the Republic of Moldova (A/HRC/19/60/Add.3)
Presentation of Reports on Enforced Disappearances and on Freedom of Religion
JEREMY SARKIN, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said the Working Group would again like to draw attention to the underreporting of disappearance cases in all regions of the world. Thousands of cases of disappearances remained unqualified and consequently remained continuous crimes. The Working Group remained concerned that of the 82 States with outstanding cases, some had never replied to the Working Group. The Working Group regrettably observed that enforced disappearances seemed to continue to be used by some States as a tool to deal with situations of conflict or internal unrest. The Working Group called on all States to take specific measures to address and prevent a pattern of threats, intimidation and reprisals against victims of enforced disappearances, including family members, witnesses and human rights defenders working on such cases.
The Working Group acknowledged the many efforts that Timor-Leste had made since its independence more than nine years ago. However, much more could be done to ensure the rights to truth, justice and reparation for disappeared persons and their families. The Working Group recommended that a national programme for all victims of human rights violations be established as soon as possible. The Working Group also took good note of the various efforts made by Mexico in the field of human rights, including combating enforced disappearances and addressing the challenges posed by the complex public security situation in the context of the fight against organized crime. Mexico had to continue its efforts to ensure the observance of the rights of victims of enforced disappearance. In the Republic of the Congo, the Working Group encouraged the Government to continue to seek the truth concerning the fate of all those alleged to have been victims of enforced disappearances in the country.
HEINER BIELEFELDT, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said that the 2012 annual report contributed to the clarification of the concept of the recognition of religion or belief and stated that there were three different meanings of recognition which related to different levels of the conceptualization and implementation of freedom of religion or belief. The first and most fundamental dimension was recognition in the sense of due respect for the status of all human beings as rights holders in the area of freedom of religion or belief; as a universal human right it must be interpreted strictly in keeping with the opening sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereby it was not the State that granted the right, but rather that the State had to respect everyone’s right to religion or belief as inalienable. Some States seemed to limit freedom of religion or belief to a given list of religious options, while in others only members of monotheistic religions could fully enjoy their rights.
The second dimension pertained to the status of a legal personality, which religious or belief communities might require to be able to exercise important collective functions. This often required registration procedures, which some States used as a means to limit the right to freedom of religion or belief, hence the frequent urging of the Human Rights Council for States to review their registration practices and ensure that they did not limit the right of all persons to manifest their right to freedom of religion or belief. The third dimension was the issue of privileged status positions for certain religious belief communities. The Special Rapporteur said that many States provided for specific status positions to be accorded to religious of belief communities, or to some of them. Quite a number of States had established an official State religion, which in some cases was a part of the State’s policy to foster national identity; ample experience showed however that such policies harbored serious risks of discrimination against minorities, immigrants or new religious movements. Those three dimensions of “recognition” had different implications for the role of the State in the recognition procedures. States should ensure that those procedures were quick, transparent, fair, inclusive and non-discriminatory.
Mr. Bielefeldt said that he was particularly grateful to the Governments of Paraguay and the Republic of Moldova for their excellent cooperation during the two country visits conducted last year.
Statements by Concerned Countries
Timor-Leste, speaking as a concerned country, said that Timor-Leste was working closely with the Government of Indonesia to ascertain the whereabouts of persons who disappeared in 1999 and had taken steps to implement the many recommendations contained in the report of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances on Timor-Leste, including the establishment of a commission for disappeared persons. Considering the proposal to establish a national institute of memory, the Government was seriously considering the effectiveness of achieving the goals of reparation through existing institutional mechanisms. Appeals for social benefits for victims as part of the reparation process should not create new disparities among those who would not benefit from such programmes, especially as 40 per cent of the population lived under the poverty line. The Government was currently working on a legal instrument aimed at establishing criteria in conformity with international human rights law for the constitutional provision giving the President the power to grant pardons.
Provedoria de Direitos Humanos e Justicia Timor-Leste, in a video statement, said that the national human rights institute of Timor-Leste was pleased to address the Council via video link. The institute had recorded 885 forced disappearances but other estimates had been in the tens of thousands with over 4,000 children missing. The institute endorsed several of the recommendations in the report on the Working Group, including that the Government should ratify the Convention on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, that the time frame for reparations and investigations should be extended to include the period of occupation from 1975 to 1999, and that all persons should be included and not only children.
Mexico, speaking as a concerned country, said that the visit by the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances took place in complete openness between the Government and the international community. The observations of the Working Group maintained balance amongst positive actions, progress made and challenges facing the country. The Government reiterated its absolute readiness for a follow up to the recommendations by the Working Group and informed the Council of the measures undertaken so far, including legislative modifications to define military jurisdiction which could not try cases against civilians. Mexico had developed a law establishing that human rights violations committed by army personnel against civilians would fall under the purview of a civil court.
International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, reading out a statement on behalf of the Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos de Mexico, said that the work of the Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos de Mexico was crucial at this time in Mexico. The protection of victims of enforced disappearances was one of main tasks of the Comision Nacional, which ensured compliance with international standards in this domain. The Comision reiterated its commitment to working with the Working Group on enforced disappearance, especially considering that the number of enforced or involuntary disappearances had doubled since 2010. With regard to the Working Group’s recommendations, the Comision Nacional was grateful for the request to the Government to implement as soon as possible the recommendations related to addressing cases of kidnapping of migrants.
Congo, speaking as a concerned country, noted that the Working Group was pleased with the state of peace in Congo, which was a result of a period of reconciliation. Structures, including several ministries, essentially played the role of a peace and reconciliation commission, including compensation of losses to victims of the conflict. The Government, to ensure collective inquiry, had erected several monuments. Most of the facts on reconciliation went back to the period of 1993 to 1994. The Government did not have sufficient resources to find the individuals entitled to compensation, although actions were being taken to try to remedy this shortcoming. The country remained aware of the recommendations of the Working Group and was undertaking reforms of the criminal code to meet those recommendations. A training programme for police officers had also been created to ensure they were able to fulfill their duties.
Paraguay, speaking as a concerned country, said that Paraguay’s constitution fully recognized the freedom of religion and belief. The State had adopted secular principles and provided the conditions for each person to practice their religion freely. State schools had not incorporated religion in their curricula but private schools had a right to engage in religious practices. The constitution recognised conscientious objector status and these individuals could provide civilian rather than military services. The Government was working to ensure that the rights of indigenous people to engage in their spiritual belief were protected.
Right of Reply
Belarus, speaking in a right of reply, said Belarus did not need the Czech Republic to micro-manage the relationship of Belarus with the Special Rapporteur on torture. This was a threat to the principles that should underpin the Council. Belarus recommended that the Czech Republic start with its own country. The Czech Republic should renew the investigation into illegal detentions and torture against prisoners and submit the results of the investigation to the Human Rights Council.
China, speaking in a right of reply, said the Chinese delegation strongly rejected the comments made in the interactive dialogue by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. This amounted to a distortion of facts and had nothing to do with human rights. During previous statements, China had clearly stated that it was strongly opposed to torture and had a complete judicial system to prevent torture. In places where self-immolation took place, communities strongly condemned such acts. Religious communities said these acts were in violation of the beliefs and values of Tibetan Buddhism. China would always adhere to the pre-set policy of safeguarding the law, the interest of the people and the normal social order.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC12/018E