COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATES ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES, TRUTH AND JUSTICE, AND ON AN EQUITABLE INTERNATIONAL ORDER

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted 20 texts in which it extended the mandates of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, and the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order.

Other texts adopted today pertained to the continuing grave deterioration in the human rights and humanitarian situation in Syria, the right to development, the right to peace, local government and human rights, the safety of journalists, the right to education by every girl, the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, promoting human rights through sport and the Olympic ideal, the use of mercenaries, preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, preventable mortality and morbidity of children under five years of age, the right of the child to play, the World Programme for Human Rights Education, human rights and indigenous peoples, national human rights institutions, technical assistance to Yemen, and enhancement of technical assistance and capacity building.

By virtue of adopted texts, the Council decided to extend for a further period of three years, the mandate of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, and by a vote of with 29 in favour, 14 against and 4, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order.

It also decided to convene a panel discussion on realizing the equal enjoyment of the right to education by every girl at its twenty-ninth session and a panel discussion on the implementation of the outcome of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples and its implications for the achievement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at its thirtieth session, and also adopted the plan of action for the third phase (2015–2019) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education. Further, the Council decided to convene a two-day informal inter-sessional intergovernmental meeting of the Working Group on the Right to Development, and by a vote of 33 in favour, five against and nine abstentions, decided that the Working Group on the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Right to Peace would hold its third session for five working days in 2015 with the objective of finalizing the Declaration.

In a resolution on the continuing grave deterioration in the human rights and humanitarian situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, adopted with 32 votes in favour, five against and 10 abstentions, the Council demanded that the Syrian authorities cooperate fully with the Commission of Inquiry, strongly condemned all violations and abuses of international human rights law and all violations of international humanitarian law committed against the civilian population and expressed its deep concern at reports on the suffering and torture in detention centres throughout Syria, including in detention facilities controlled by non-State armed groups.

The Council requested the Advisory Committee to finalize a report on the role of local government in the promotion and protection of human rights and the study on the possibilities of using sport and the Olympic ideal to promote human rights for all. It also requested the High Commissioner to prepare a follow-up report on how the technical guidance on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights has been applied by States and other actors, and the report of the practical application of the technical guidance on the application of a human rights-based approach to the implementation of policies and programmes to reduce and eliminate preventable mortality and morbidity of children under five years of age.

In the texts concerning technical assistance and capacity building, the Council requested the High Commissioner to provide technical assistance to Yemen and to present to the Council at its thirtieth session, a progress report on the situation of human rights in this country, and decided that the theme for the annual thematic panel discussion to be held at the twenty-eighth session of the Council would be “technical cooperation to support inclusive and participatory development and poverty eradication at the national level”.

The Council condemned attacks and violence against journalists and media workers and the prevailing impunity for attacks and violence against journalists, called upon States and non-State actors to achieve progressively the full realization of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, and recommended that the celebration of the International Day of Sport for Development and Peace emphasized the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities. It encouraged States to establish and strengthen national human rights institutions and encouraged them to continue to play an active role in preventing and combating all violations and abuses of human rights as enumerated in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

In a resolution adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 14 against and 1 abstentions, the Council requested all States to exercise the utmost vigilance against any kind of recruitment, training, hiring or financing of mercenaries and requested the Working Group on the use of mercenaries to continue its work as mandated.

Introducing texts were France, Iran, Switzerland, Austria, United Arab Emirates, Germany, Spain, Russia, Cuba, Burkina Faso, Mexico, Ireland, Botswana, Romania, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Netherlands, Yemen, and Thailand.

Syria spoke as a concerned country.

Speaking in general comments were Argentina, Venezuela, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United States, Italy on behalf of the European Union, Algeria, United Kingdom, and India.

Speaking in explanations of the vote before or after the vote were India, Russian Federation, United States, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Italy on behalf of the European Union, South Africa, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia on behalf of Gulf Cooperation Council, Mexico, Cuba, China, Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina.

The Council will resume its work at 9.30 a.m. on Friday, 26 September to continue to take action on remaining draft resolutions and decisions before closing its twenty-seventh session.

Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

Action on Resolution on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.1) on enforced or involuntary disappearances, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon all States that have not yet signed, ratified or acceded to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance to consider doing so as a matter of priority; decides to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a further period of three years, in conformity with the terms set forth in Human Rights Council resolution 7/12; notes with concern that the Working Group has insufficient resources to exercise its mandate effectively, particularly in relation to human resources, where there is an acute need, and requests the Secretary-General to provide the Working Group with all the resources and assistance necessary for it to be able to sustainably fulfil its mandate effectively, in particular by putting adequate and predictable human and material resources at its disposal.

France, introducing draft resolution L.1 on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said this was essentially a procedural text to renew for another three years the mandate of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. France reiterated the importance it attached to this mandate, as enforced disappearances constituted a particularly cruel form of human rights violations and unfortunately continued to occur. The mandate of the Working Group was essential to respond to the suffering of families of disappeared persons and help them to throw light on the fate of their loved ones.

Argentina, speaking in a general comment, said that it had been involved in the establishment of the Working Group and continued to believe that its work was critically important.

India, speaking in a general comment, took the floor to reaffirm its support for draft resolution L.1 on forced and involuntary disappearances, and to disassociate itself from the preamble of the draft resolution, regarding the paragraph that enforced and involuntary disappearances could constitute crimes under the Rome Statute.

Russia, speaking in a general comment, referred to paragraph 8 on additional financing to the Working Group on Forced and Involuntary Disappearances, noting the importance of the application of equal technical support for all the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council.

Action on Resolution on the Right to Development

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.3) on the right to development, adopted by a vote of 42 in favour, 1 against and 4 abstentions, the Council decides to continue to act to ensure that its agenda promotes and advances sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, and in this regard, leads to raising the right to development to the same level and on a par with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms; that the Working Group on the Right to Development will continue to consider, revise and refine the draft right to development criteria and sub-criteria; decides to convene a two-day informal intersessional intergovernmental meeting of the Working Group with the participation of States, groups of States and relevant United Nations agencies, funds and programmes and institutions, as well as other multilateral institutions and forums, and international organizations and other relevant stakeholders, with a view to improve the effectiveness of the Working Group at its sixteenth session; and decides to consider the extension of the meeting time of the Working Group, as appropriate.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (42): Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (4): Japan, Republic of Korea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and United Kingdom.


Iran, introducing draft resolution L.3 on the right to development, said that the draft resolution emphasized that human rights could only be enjoyed in an inclusive framework at the international level, and stressed the importance of engaging the United Nations system. The draft took note of the report of the Working Group on its fifteenth session and specified that the Working Group would continue at its sixteenth session to consider a draft right to development criteria. The draft resolution also urged the High Commissioner to pursue its efforts for the realization of the right to development.

Venezuela, in a general comment, expressed full support for draft resolution L.3 on the right to development, noting that the right to development was crucial for enjoying all other fundamental freedoms. It was necessary to raise the right to development to the same level as other rights, and to introduce a legally binding instrument on the right to development. Venezuela said it hoped that the Council would support that vital development.

Pakistan, in a general comment, strongly supported draft resolution L.3 on the right to development, stressing that the right to development was crucial in achieving all other rights. The international community had an obligation to treat human rights with the same emphasis. It was necessary to revise a comprehensive set of standards of the right to development, which required the cooperation of all Council members. Pakistan called on all Council members to support this initiative.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it had concerns because this unbalanced resolution included controversial language and did not reflect different viewpoints. The United States requested a vote and would vote against this resolution. The resolution did not mention the importance of specific development measurement mechanisms. Discussions of the Working Group should be on human rights and development. The United States was opposed to the adoption of a binding international instrument on the right to development.

United Kingdom, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated its support to the right to development with the rights of the individual at its core. The United Kingdom pursued an active international development policy, and was committed to constructively engage in negotiations for this resolution. Their concerns had unfortunately not been addressed, as the resolution did not refer enough to human rights. The United Kingdom would therefore abstain.

France, speaking in an explanation of the vote, said it supported the resolution on the right to development. However, it was important not to prejudge the work of the Working Group.

Japan, speaking in an explanation of the vote, stressed the importance of maintaining a constructive discussion on the right to development, and said it would continue to harmonise different positions. The outcome of discussions in the Working Group should not be prejudged, and Japan would not support the current text of the draft resolution. Japan strongly encouraged the Working Group to take up the issue of indicators in its future sessions.

Italy, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union supported the right to development as based on the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights, and said that the right to development required the full realization of all rights and a mix of policies creating an enabling environment for individuals. The European Union had proved its readiness to engage with the Working Group, and said that the Working Group had to consider the indicators defined by the High Level Task Force. The European Union was not in favour of the elaboration of an international binding instrument. The European Union noted with appreciation that the Non-Aligned Movement showed openness and flexibility during the negotiations but said that nevertheless the concerns of some European Union Member States had not been addressed.

Action on Resolution on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.4) on the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a period of three years with the same terms as provided for by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 18/7; urges all States to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur so that his mandate can be carried out effectively, including by responding favourably and rapidly to requests for visits, mindful that country visits are one of the essential tools for the fulfilment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and to provide him in a timely manner with all the necessary information requested by him; requests the Special Rapporteur to continue to report annually to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly; and requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Special Rapporteur with all the human, technical and financial assistance necessary for the effective fulfilment of his mandate.

Switzerland, introducing draft resolution L.4 on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, said the main objective of this text was the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for another three years. The broad support for this resolution demonstrated the high relevance of this mandate.

Argentina, speaking in a general comment, said that it was one of the main promoters of the initiative to create this mandate, and said that this issue had to be one of the highest on the agenda of the Human Rights Council. Argentina hoped this text would be adopted with the highest possible number of co-sponsors.

Action on Resolution on Local Government and Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.6) on local government and human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Advisory Committee to continue the research, from within existing resources, and to submit a final report on the role of local government in the promotion and protection of human rights to the Human Rights Council at its thirtieth session. The Council also requests the Advisory Committee, when elaborating the above-mentioned report, to include therein the main challenges faced by local governments in the promotion and protection of human rights, and make recommendations to tackle those challenges based on best practices in human rights mainstreaming in local administration and public services; and further requests the Advisory Committee to seek, if necessary, further views and the input of Member States, relevant international and regional organizations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant Special Procedures, as well as national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, in order to finalize the above-mentioned research-based report.

Republic of Korea, speaking on behalf of Chile, Egypt and Romania, introduced draft resolution L.6 on local government and human rights. Local governments had an increasing role in complementing the role of central governments in the promotion of human rights. The resolution called on the Advisory Committee to continue its research, conduct in-depth analysis of the issue and submit a final report to the Council at its thirtieth session.

Action on Resolution on the Safety of Journalists

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.7) on the safety of journalists, adopted without a vote, the Council condemns unequivocally all attacks and violence against journalists and media workers, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention, and intimidation and harassment in both conflict and non-conflict situations; strongly condemns the prevailing impunity for attacks and violence against journalists; urges States to promote a safe and enabling environment for journalists to perform their work independently and without undue interference; calls upon States to develop and implement strategies for combating impunity for attacks and violence against journalists; stresses the need to ensure better cooperation and coordination at the international level; and decides to continue its consideration of the safety of journalists in accordance with its programme of work, no later than at its thirty-third session.

Austria, introducing draft resolution L.7 on the safety of journalists, said the high number of co-sponsors reflected the strong support for this initiative, as more than 1,000 journalists had been killed since 1992 as a direct result of their profession. More than 90 per cent of reported crimes against journalists remained unresolved. The draft resolution gave specific attention to this lack of accountability and called upon States to develop and implement strategies to combat impunity. The draft also urged States to ensure that victims and their families had access to appropriate remedies.

Russia, speaking in a general comment, said that unfortunately it could only note that the profession of journalists, particularly war journalists who worked in conditions of armed conflict, had become one of the most dangerous ones in the world, strikingly attested to by the recent barbaric murders in Iraq and Syria and the widely spread cases of attacks, abductions, torture and murders of mass media representatives by Ukrainian forces in Donbass. If the Council remained silent on this, it would be an incorrect political message to those who were perpetrating such heinous crimes.

Action on Resolution on the Right to Education for Girls

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.8) on a panel discussion on realizing the equal enjoyment of the right to education by every girl, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to convene, at its twenty-ninth session, a panel discussion on realizing the equal enjoyment of the right to education by every girl, with a view to sharing lessons learned and best practices in this regard; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize the panel and to liaise with States, relevant United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, relevant special procedures, civil society, including relevant children’s and youth organizations, national human rights institutions and other relevant stakeholders with a view to ensuring their participation in and contribution to the panel discussion; and also requests the High Commissioner to prepare a summary report of the panel discussion, and to present it to the Human Rights Council at its thirtieth session.

United Arab Emirates, introducing draft resolution L.8, said that the text sought to strengthen efforts and overcome all barriers to the enjoinment of the right to education for girls. The draft resolution also indicated that despite the progress achieved over the past years, 31 million girls were still unable to access primary education. The text was drafted in consultation with many delegations and called for a panel discussion to be held during the next session of the Council and also called upon the High Commissioner to prepare a summary on the right to education for girls. The United Arab Emirates would contribute financial resources towards the implementation of this draft resolution.

Action on Resolution on the Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.11/Rev.1) on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses alarm by the fact that the percentage of the global population without access to an improved sanitation facility decreased by only seven per cent between 1990 and 2012 and that, if current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goal target on sanitation will be missed by more than half a billion people, and calls upon all Member States to continue to support the global effort to realize the goals of the advocacy campaign “Sustainable sanitation: the five-year drive to 2015”, including action to eliminate the practice of open defecation, as called for by the Deputy Secretary-General on 28 May 2014; calls upon States to achieve progressively the full realization of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; calls upon non-State actors, including business enterprises, to comply with their responsibility to respect the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; encourages all Governments to continue to respond favourably to requests by the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation for visits and information; requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Special Rapporteur with all the resources and assistance necessary for the effective fulfilment of the mandate; and decides to continue its consideration of this matter under the same agenda item and in accordance with its programme of work.

Germany, introducing draft resolution L.11/Rev. 1 on the human right to drinking water and sanitation, stressed that a holistic approach needed to be adopted to realise this right. The international community needed to accelerate access to drinking water and sanitation to everyone on an equal footing. Germany welcomed the work of the Special Rapporteur.

Also introducing the draft resolution, Spain noted the different modalities of securing the right to drinking water and sanitation, and welcomed the new holder of the Special Rapporteur, and hoped that the resolution would be adopted by the entire Council.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated its commitment to addressing access to safe water and sanitation which it had made a priority in its development assistance. The United States joined the consensus on this draft resolution with an understanding that States could not be obliged to fulfil the rights defined in treaties they were not parties to; the United States was not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United States must disassociate from the consensus on the preambular paragraph 21 because of the language used which did not conform to that of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

South Africa, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the provision of water and sanitation had a direct impact on the realization of the right to health and the right to an adequate standard of living. The Council should make references to inter-governmentally agreed approaches to the realization of the right to water and sanitation. It underlined that the right to development was an unalienable right, adding that water was life and sanitation was dignity.

Action on Resolution on Promoting Human Rights through Sport and the Olympic Ideal

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.14) on promoting human rights through sport and the Olympic ideal, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon States to cooperate with the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee in their efforts to use sport as a tool to promote human rights, development, peace, dialogue and reconciliation during and beyond the period of the Olympic and Paralympic Games; encourages States to promote sport as a means to combat all forms of discrimination; requests the Advisory Committee to finalize the study on the possibilities of using sport and the Olympic ideal to promote human rights for all and to strengthen universal respect for them, and to present it in a report to the Human Rights Council before its thirtieth session; and decides to continue consideration of this issue in accordance with its programme of work.

Russia, introducing draft resolution L.14 concerning the promotion of human rights through sport and the Olympic ideal, said that a variety of countries with diverse cultures and histories came together around this resolution for the benefit of humanity. It was evident that by developing cooperation in the area of sport, the idea of human rights values was promoted too. The draft resolution made a recommendation to States to strengthen human rights through sports and requested the Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee to complete a study on the subject.

Russia, speaking in a general comment in its national capacity, said that international sporting competitions should not be used as a tool of political influence. That was unacceptable and harmful. Russia called on all Governments to hold sports events in a spirit of tolerance and cooperation.

Action on Resolution on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.16) on the mandate of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, adopted with a vote of 29 in favour, 14 against and 4 abstentions, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order for a period of three years, in conformity with the terms set forth in Human Rights Council resolution 18/6; calls upon all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Independent Expert in the discharge of his mandate, and to provide him with all the necessary information requested by him in order to enable him to fulfil his duties effectively; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all the necessary human and financial resources for the effective fulfilment of the mandate by the Independent Expert; requests the human rights treaty bodies, the Office of the High Commissioner, the special mechanisms extended by the Human Rights Council and the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to pay due attention, within their respective mandates, to the present resolution and to make contributions to its implementation; requests the Independent Expert to report regularly to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly in accordance with their respective programmes of work; and decides to continue its consideration of this matter under the same agenda item at its thirtieth session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (29): Algeria, Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

Against (14): Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

Abstentions (4): Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru.


Cuba, introducing draft resolution L.16 on the mandate of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, said the text would renew the mandate of the Independent Expert, which was particularly important nowadays when the sharing of technologies and international aid was subjected to unfair conditions. No country could enjoy their right to peace or self-determination without an equitable international order.

Italy, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union believed that the elements of the mandate of the Independent Expert were selected arbitrarily. The mandate had reached its potential and should not be renewed. The European Union Member States of the Council would therefore call for a vote and vote against this draft resolution.

Action on Resolution on the Use of Mercenaries

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.17) on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 14 against and 1 abstention, the Council requests all States to exercise the utmost vigilance against any kind of recruitment, training, hiring or financing of mercenaries; calls upon all States that have not yet become parties to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries to consider taking the necessary action to do so; calls upon the international community and all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law, to cooperate with and assist the judicial prosecution of those accused of mercenary activities in transparent, open and fair trials; requests the Working Group on the use of mercenaries to continue its work including monitoring of mercenaries and mercenary-related activities as well as private military and security companies, in different parts of the world and to continue to update the database of individuals convicted of mercenary activities; requests the Working Group to continue to study and identify sources and causes, emerging issues, manifestations and trends regarding mercenaries or mercenary-related activities and their impact on human rights, particularly on the right of peoples to self-determination; and decides to continue its consideration of this matter under the same agenda item at its thirtieth session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Algeria, Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

Against (14): Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

Abstentions (1): Mexico.


Cuba, introducing the draft resolution L.17 on the use of mercenaries, said that States needed to be vigilant about the practice of using and recruiting mercenaries. In particular they needed to consider the use of military and private security companies when discussing the resolution.

Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the prolonged confusion between mercenaries and private military and security companies in the Council undermined the work of the Working Group, and for that reason the European Union could not support the resolution and would vote against it.

Action on Resolution on Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.19/Rev.1) on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council urges all States to renew their political commitment to eliminate preventable maternal mortality and morbidity at the local, national, regional and international levels due to primary and secondary causes; requests States and other relevant actors to give renewed emphasis to maternal mortality and morbidity initiatives in their development partnerships and cooperation arrangements; urges States and other relevant stakeholders to address the interlinked root causes of maternal mortality and morbidity and to pay particular attention to eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls, especially adolescent girls; calls upon all relevant actors to continue to disseminate the technical guidance and to apply it as appropriate; calls upon all relevant United Nations agencies, programmes and funds to support the implementation of the technical guidance; requests the High Commissioner to prepare a follow-up report on how the technical guidance has been applied by States and other relevant actors, to be presented to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-third session; and decides to remain seized of the matter.

Burkina Faso, presenting draft resolution L.19/Rev.1 on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights, said the text followed-up the report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on this issue. It called for a better dissemination of the guidelines by the High Commissioner. This draft concerned a very important issue on which the international community had to be united.

South Africa, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, spoke about the evolution of the right to development for the practical realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United Nations human rights system had yet to adopt a notion of human rights based approach to development. South Africa was not in a position to support undefined notions, which may be resorted to as conditionalities. South Africa joined the consensus in this matter, but urged the co-sponsors to reconsider their approach.

Pakistan, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, voiced strong commitment to maternal health and the prevention of maternal mortality and morbidity, and said that any approach to those issues needed to correspond to national and international laws, and to be respectful of the cultural background of people. Pakistan stressed that it was counterproductive to introduce subjects that were already being dealt with by other specialized United Nations entities, and Pakistan therefore disassociated itself from paragraph 2 of the resolution.

Saudi Arabia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, reaffirmed their commitment to efforts to prevent maternal mortality and morbidity. Gulf Cooperation Council countries had implemented many measures to deal with this problem. Cultural and religious characteristics of States needed to be taken into account within the framework of the resolution.

Action on Resolution on the World Programme for Human Rights Education

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.20) on the World Programme for Human Rights Education: adoption of the plan of action for the third phase, adopted without a vote, the Council adopts the plan of action for the third phase (2015–2019) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education; requests the Office of the High Commissioner, in close cooperation with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, to promote the national implementation of the plan of action, to provide technical assistance when requested, and to coordinate related international efforts, as well as to disseminate the plan of action widely; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to submit an evaluation report of the implementation of the second phase of the World Programme, based on national evaluation reports, to the Human Rights Council at its thirtieth session; decides to follow up on the implementation of the World Programme in 2017, and requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a midterm progress report on the implementation of the third phase of the World Programme and to submit it to the Council at its thirty-sixth session.

Costa Rica, introducing draft resolution L.20 on the World Programme for Human Rights Education, Adoption of a Plan of Action for the Third Phase, said that human rights education was a well-known subject for the Council. The final outcome of the programme of action was recently presented, and the third phase would also focus on the media, journalists and targeted groups. There had been open-ended consultations on this draft, and therefore Costa Rica hoped the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it was pleased to join the consensus on this resolution, as it underscored the importance of human rights education as a tool for raising awareness on human rights. The resolution also underlined the role played by the media on that matter. The United States joined the consensus mindful of the fact that education in the United States was mainly a competence of the federal States.

Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.22) on human rights and indigenous peoples, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council requests the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples to report on the implementation of her mandate to the General Assembly at its seventieth session; requests the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to prepare a study on the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples with respect to their cultural heritage and to present it to the Human Rights Council at its thirtieth session, and to also continue to undertake the questionnaire survey to seek the views of States and indigenous peoples on best practices in order to attain the end goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; decides to hold, at its thirtieth session, a half-day panel discussion on the follow-up to and implementation of the outcome of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in Alta, Norway, and its implications for the achievement of the ends of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; encourages those States that have not yet ratified or acceded to the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) of the International Labour Organization, or that have not yet supported the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to consider doing so; and decides to continue its consideration of this question at a future session in conformity with its annual programme of work.

Mexico, introducing draft resolution L.22 on human rights and indigenous peoples, said that the initiative would contribute to the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and requested the Expert Mechanism to conduct a study on the protection of indigenous peoples’ heritage and ways to ensure their participation in public and political life. The initiative was an outcome of broad consultations with States, representatives of indigenous peoples, the Expert Mechanism, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Mexico said that the resolution aimed to create a true society of rights for all people, regardless of their ethnic origin.

United States, in a general comment, said that indigenous peoples around the world faced grave challenges and it was committed to addressing these both at home and abroad. It welcomed the reference in the text to promoting indigenous peoples’ participation in the United Nations and consideration of their concerns in the post-2015 development agenda. In order to further improve the situation, the United States believed that there had to be a focus on the promotion and protection of indigenous individuals and the collective rights of indigenous peoples and was pleased that the draft resolution addressed both topics.

Action on Resolution on Preventable Mortality and Morbidity of Children

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.23) on preventable mortality and morbidity of children under five years of age as a human rights concern, adopted without a vote, the Council welcomes the technical guidance on the application of a human rights-based approach to the implementation of policies and programmes to reduce and eliminate preventable mortality and morbidity of children under five years of age; requests the High Commissioner, in close collaboration with the World Health Organization and in consultation with States, relevant United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Children’s Fund and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, as well as the special procedures mandate holders, human rights mechanisms, regional organizations and civil society, to prepare a report on the practical application of the technical guidance and its impact on the development and implementation of policies and programmes in States to reduce preventable mortality and morbidity of children under five, and to present it to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-third session; and decides to remain seized of the matter.

Ireland, introducing draft resolution L.23 on preventable mortality and morbidity of children under the age of five as a human rights concern, said that this was a follow-up to a resolution adopted last year by the Council. More than 6 million children died every year under the age of five. Technical guidance was needed as a tool that States could apply as appropriate. Ireland had worked to achieve a balanced text, in collaboration with other delegations, United Nations agencies and civil society organizations.

Botswana, also introducing draft resolution L.23, said that preventable mortality and morbidity of children under the age of five had to be an issue on which the Council should be able to speak in one voice. Botswana encouraged all States to support this resolution and the United Nations guidelines.

Pakistan, in a general comment, categorically stated that it fully supported the core objective of the draft resolution. Pakistan, however, was opposed in principle to the introduction of subjects in the Human Rights Council that were being dealt with in separate frameworks and separate United Nations entities.

South Africa, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United Nations human rights system had yet to adopt a notion of a human rights-based approach to development. South Africa was not in a position to support undefined notions and the co-sponsors of the resolution were urged to reconsider their approach.

Action on Resolution on the Right of the Child to Engage in Play

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.28) on the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities, adopted without a vote, the Council encourages States to take specific measures to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities; also encourages States to ensure that effective, safe and child-sensitive counselling, reporting and complaints mechanisms are accessible to all children, that they pursue the best interests of the child at all times and that they comply with international human rights standards; further encourages States to take active measures to restore and protect the right of the child to play and recreation in forced displacement, post-conflict and disaster situations, with a view to promoting resilience and psychological healing; encourages international cooperation in the realization of the right of the child to play and recreation; and recommends that the celebration of the International Day of Sport for Development and Peace emphasize, through specific events, the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities.

Romania, introducing draft resolution L.28 on the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities, said that the right to play had not been given much focus as part of the rights of the child. That was why this resolution was drafted. States were encouraged to take measures and respect, protect and promote play and recreational activities for children, including sport. Romania welcomed the work by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which gave special consideration to this right. Romania also paid tribute to the work of the United Nations Children’s Fund and civil society.

South Africa, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the draft resolution was intrusive into the domestic affairs of States. The language was seriously problematic, presupposing that all countries were on the same level of development. It was difficult to understand why toys and games such as play stations should be supplied, when children were hungry and walked long distances to school. The language shied away from the priorities and challenges facing children around the world. The co-sponsors were urged to reconsider their approach.

Action on Resolution under the Agenda Item on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

Action on Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in Syria

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.5/Rev.1) on the continuing grave deterioration in the human rights and humanitarian situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, five against and 10 abstentions, the Council demands that the Syrian authorities cooperate fully with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, including by granting it immediate, full and unfettered access throughout the Syrian Arab Republic; strongly condemns all violations and abuses of international human rights law and all violations of international humanitarian law committed against the civilian population; expresses its deep concern at reports on the suffering and torture in detention centres throughout the Syrian Arab Republic; calls for the appropriate international monitoring bodies to be granted access to detainees in government prisons and detention centres; strongly condemns the reports of widespread use of sexual violence in government detention centres; and demands that the Syrian authorities meet their responsibilities to protect the Syrian population. The Council strongly condemns practices including abduction, hostage-taking, incommunicado detention, torture and killings carried out by non-State armed groups, most notably the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and underlines that such acts may amount to crimes against humanity; expresses grave concern at allegations of torture in detention facilities controlled by non-State armed groups, and stresses that such acts constitute violations of international humanitarian law and abuses of human rights; strongly condemns the intervention in the Syrian Arab Republic of all foreign terrorist fighters and those foreign combatants fighting on behalf of the regime; demands that the Syrian authorities, the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and all other groups halt the arbitrary detention of civilians, both Syrian and non-Syrian nationals, and release all civilians detained; condemns all violations and abuses committed against journalists and media activists, human rights defenders and humanitarian aid providers; strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic and notes with grave concern the Commission of Inquiry’s finding that the Syrian authorities have repeatedly used chlorine gas as an illegal weapon; expresses deep concern at the growing number of refugees and internally displaced persons fleeing the violence; and urges the international community, including all donors, to provide urgent financial support to enable the host countries to respond to the growing humanitarian needs of Syrian refugees. The Council urges those countries with influence over the Syrian parties to take all measures to encourage the parties to the conflict to negotiate constructively and on the basis of the call made in the Geneva communiqué for the formation of a transitional governing body. Finally, the Council decides to transmit all reports and oral updates of the Commission of Inquiry to all relevant bodies of the United Nations, including the General Assembly, and the Secretary-General for appropriate action.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Gabon, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

Against (5): Algeria, China, Cuba, Russian Federation, and Venezuela.

Abstentions (10): Congo, Ethiopia, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa, and Viet Nam.


United Kingdom, introducing draft resolution L.5/Rev.1 on the human rights situation in Syria, said that the crisis in Syria continued to have a devastating impact on civilians. Indiscriminate attacks contravened international humanitarian law. Atrocities were being perpetrated, including by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The resolution called on all sides to cease hostilities. The United Kingdom hoped that this resolution would enjoy the broadest possible support.

Saudi Arabia, also introducing draft resolution L.5/Rev.1, said that the use of chemical weapons was a grave crime that added to the abuses by all sides, including ISIL. Saudi Arabia called on this Council to adopt this resolution by consensus to put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people.

Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, said the situation in Syria continued to escalate. Systematic and widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law continued unabated. The European Union was gravely concerned about the continuing and indiscriminate bloodshed and called for an end to the violence. It was also concerned about the spread of extremism and extremist groups, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Their involvement in the conflict exacerbated the suffering of local communities and posed a threat to the territorial integrity of Syria and to regional and international security. The Syrian authorities bore the responsibility to protect the civilian population and failed to do so.

Russia, in a general comment, said that the focus in the draft resolution was deliberately placed in the wrong place. There were assertions that the blame lay mainly on the shoulders of the Syrian Government, even though the report of the Commission of Inquiry referred to the violations committed by other actors. Russia had had to initiate a statement on behalf of a group of States condemning the acts of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, Al-Nusra and other jihadist groupings in Syria.

Algeria, in a general comment, said it was greatly concerned by the persistence of this conflict in Syria and believed that any solution had to be through an inclusive political settlement process. Despite efforts to ensure more objectivity in the text, it had to note that the draft still suffered from a great imbalance. Some of the facts were highlighted and others not sufficiently so, or mentioned in passing. There was imbalance in the way in which the recommendations were set forth. Therefore, Algeria was not in a position to agree on the draft resolution and would vote against.

Syria, speaking as the concerned country, said the draft resolution was issued by States who had committed serious human rights violations themselves, including Israel. Those Arab countries that had joined this coalition should be ashamed. This draft resolution undermined the credibility of the Council and created a dangerous precedent as it justified acts committed by terrorist groups. This was an attempt from some States to free themselves from their obligation to combat terrorism and protect civilians. Syria invited members of the Council to vote against this politicized draft resolution that was not objective.

Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it supported this draft resolution, but was not in a position to co-sponsor it because its proposal made during the negotiations to better address the humanitarian situation was not sufficiently taken into consideration. The international community sought to address the situation in Syria, but remained powerless and ineffective. Mexico proposed to explore new protection mechanisms, including having a meeting of the parties of the Geneva Conventions.

Cuba, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated its condemnation of the killing of innocent people, all war crimes, torture and extrajudicial killings. However, it rejected the selective and manipulative attribution of responsibility to only one side to the conflict. There could be no violation of the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. Cuba supported a political solution to the crisis. Cuba would vote against the draft resolution.

China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it was highly concerned by the situation in Syria, condemned all forms of violence against civilians, and was opposed to all forms of terrorism. The discussion in the Council on Syria should take an impartial and balanced attitude, conducive to promoting a political solution. Regrettably, despite the efforts of the sponsors, the draft text had severe gaps. China would vote against the draft resolution. China reiterated its dedication to safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria.

Venezuela, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it would vote against this resolution as it violated the principles of non-selectivity, non-interference and sovereignty of Syria and refused to condemn acts by terrorist groups in the country. Venezuela supported initiatives to promote a political and peaceful solution negotiated by Syrians and respectful of Syria’s integrity and sovereignty.

Brazil, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, urged all parties to reach a ceasefire and support the victims. All chemical weapons had to be destroyed, and the production facilities dismantled. Brazil supported a political solution that respected the will of the Syrian people.

Argentina, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed deep concern at the serious deterioration of the human rights situation in Syria with increased use of force against civilians. Argentina would vote in favour of the draft resolution. All sides to the conflict had to abide by the principles of international humanitarian law. Argentina was concerned about seeing the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and other related groups making actions that were constantly in violation of international humanitarian law and international human right law. A call was made to States to stop their supply of weapons.

Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

Action on Resolution on the Promotion of the Right to Peace

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.15/Rev.1) on the promotion of the right to peace, adopted with a vote of 33 in favour, five against and nine abstentions, the Council decides that the working group shall hold its third session for five working days in 2015 with the objective of finalizing the declaration; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the working group with the assistance necessary for it to fulfil its mandate; requests the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the working group to conduct informal consultations with Governments, regional groups and relevant stakeholders before the third session of the working group; also requests the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the working group to prepare a revised text on the basis of the discussions held during the first and second sessions of the working group and on the basis of the intersessional informal consultations to be held, and to present it prior to the third session of the working group for consideration and further discussion thereat; and requests the working group to prepare a report and to submit it to the Human Rights Council for consideration at its twenty-ninth session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (33): Algeria, Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

Against (9): Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

Abstentions (5): Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Romania, and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Cuba, introducing draft resolution L.15/Rev.1 on the right to peace on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said the text convened a third session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on the right to peace to finalize the draft Declaration on the Right to Peace. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States was grateful for the work of non-governmental organizations and delegations for their efforts to address different views and hoped this text would be adopted by consensus.

Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, expressed its full support for this draft resolution and for a draft United Nations Declaration on the Right to Peace. Venezuela called on the international community to fully support the right to peace.

United Kingdom, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, underlined its firm belief in the promotion of peace and human rights, which were interlinked. However, there was no legal basis for the right to peace in international law. The United Kingdom had consistently expressed concern about the draft declaration on the right to peace. It was unfortunate that the main sponsors failed to take account of amendments, notably the reference to the right to peace, which would have allowed for a more positive view of the draft text. The United Kingdom called for a vote, and said it would vote against the resolution.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, welcomed the efforts of Costa Rica in trying to find consensus on this difficult issue. While the United States had voted against the establishment of the Working Group, it had participated constructively in its first two sessions and would continue to do so. It did not agree with attempts to develop a collective right to peace that would in any way stifle or modify the exercise of existing human rights. The United States called for a vote and said it would vote against the draft resolution.

Action on Resolution on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.25) on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Human Rights Council, at its thirty-third session, a report on the implementation of the present resolution, and a report on the activities of the International Coordinating Committee in accrediting national institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles.

Australia, introducing draft resolution L.25 on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, said that national human rights institutions played a key role. The draft resolution would ensure that the Secretary-General continued to report to the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and mandated continued reporting on the activities of the International Coordinating Committee for national human rights institutions’ Subcommittee on Accreditation, in considering and reviewing applications for accreditation under the Paris Principles. The text also emphasized the key role played by national human rights institutions for the prevention of human rights violations, and addressed the issue of reprisals against members of such institutions or people engaging with them.

India, in a general comment, supported the strengthening of national human rights institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights. Caution had to be exercised and overzealousness had to be avoided, or they could undermine the integrity and autonomy of national human rights institutions in their countries. There were certain provisions in the draft resolution that were overly prescriptive on the nature and conduct of national human rights institutions. Their role and nature were clearly defined in national legislation establishing them. Such attempts should be avoided.

South Africa, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that whilst it had previously sponsored the resolution on this subject and wished to continue, this had become impossible. This draft resolution presented serious challenges to the institutional framework and governance issues of the Human Rights Council. This slant had continued to be followed by the co-sponsors despite concerns raised to them by South Africa. South Africa could not support the undermining of the General Assembly through this draft resolution. The text was flawed classifying national human rights institutions in the same category as law enforcement bodies. South Africa could not support this resolution and dissociated itself.

Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building

Action on Resolution on Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building for Yemen

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.9/Rev.1) on technical assistance and capacity-building for Yemen in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon the Government to release persons arbitrarily detained and to end any practice of unlawful detention of persons; demands that armed groups end the recruitment and use of children and release those who have already been recruited, and calls upon all parties to cooperate with the United Nations and other qualified groups for their reintegration into their communities; calls upon the Government of Yemen to investigate cases of violence against journalists and review cases of detention of journalists; calls upon the Government of Yemen to uphold the rights of all non-nationals; and calls upon the international community to provide financial support for the Yemen humanitarian response plan of 2014. The Council requests the High Commissioner to provide technical assistance and to work with the Government of Yemen, as needed, to identify additional areas of assistance to enable Yemen to fulfil its human rights obligations; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner to present to the Human Rights Council, at its thirtieth session, a progress report on the situation of human rights in Yemen and on the follow-up to the present resolution and Council resolutions 18/19, 19/29, 21/22 and 24/32.

Netherlands, introducing draft resolution L.9/Rev.1 on technical assistance and capacity building for Yemen in the field of human rights, said that Yemen and the Netherlands had worked closely together for the drafting of this text. The draft recognized efforts by Yemen, including its cooperation with the United Nations and peace agreements. The draft called for the nomination of members of the Committee of Inquiry for ensuring accountability for human rights violations. The resolution expressed concerns at continuing violence and the recruitment of child soldiers. The Netherlands welcomed Yemen’s commitment to work on the improvement of its human rights situation.

Yemen, also introducing draft resolution L.9/Rev.1, said that it was facing great challenges in the field of human rights and needed support from the international community. Yemen was confident that the next Government would take the necessary measures to implement recommendations made to Yemen during its Universal Periodic Review, in collaboration with civil society organizations. Yemen hoped this draft resolution would have a solid backing by the Council.

Action on Resolution on the Enhancement of Technical Cooperation and Capacity-Building in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L.18/Rev.1) on enhancement of technical cooperation and capacity-building in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council affirms that technical cooperation should be an inclusive exercise that engages and involves all national stakeholders at all stages; calls upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant United Nations agencies to continue to provide technical cooperation to States, upon their request, in the implementation of their human rights obligations and accepted universal periodic review recommendations to ensure and promote the full realization of the rights of persons with disabilities; decides that the theme for the annual thematic panel discussion to be held at the twenty-eighth session of the Council shall be “Technical cooperation to support inclusive and participatory development and poverty eradication at the national level”; and requests the High Commissioner to prepare a report on the technical assistance provided by his Office to support inclusive and participatory development at the national level, for submission to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session.

Thailand, introducing draft resolution L.18/Rev.1 on the enhancement of technical cooperation and capacity building, said that this resolution was tabled annually to enhance the role of the Council in providing this cooperation, particularly through panel discussions on specific themes of capacity building and technical cooperation. In this year’s draft text, the theme would be technical cooperation to support inclusive and participatory development and poverty eradication at the national level. Since the adoption of the Millennium Declaration, considerable progress in development had been achieved. However, such progress was uneven in and across countries. Developing countries still faced obstacles to development, including capacity. The Council and the international community had an important role to play in supporting countries. It was hoped that the draft text would be adopted by consensus.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, supported this resolution on technical cooperation in the field of human rights. The United States underlined that States had the primary responsibility to promote and protect human rights, regardless of whether they were receiving technical assistance. The United States regretted that the draft resolution contained references to the right to development, which was not universally recognized.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC14/139E