HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES THIRTY-SECOND SESSION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its thirty-second regular session, which had been suspended on 1 July, after confirming the appointment of five mandate holders and adopting the report of the session.

Choi Kyong-Lim, President of the Council, said that the Office of Legal Affairs had opined that the decision of the President regarding the appointment of five mandate holders stood unless there was a motion for reconsideration under the rule 123 from the Rules of Procedure.

Russian Federation, speaking on behalf of a group of like-minded States, expressed deep regret and concern over the approach chosen by the President regarding the endorsement of the list of candidates for mandate holders. The group of countries was of the view that the appointment needed to be reconsidered. The practice of consensual endorsement of candidates for Special Procedure mandate holders ought to be preserved.

Also speaking on the subject of the appointment of the mandate holders were Namibia and Paraguay.

The following Observer States spoke in general comments: Azerbaijan, Malta, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Japan, Uruguay, Nicaragua, United States, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Iran.

Bertrand De Crombrugghe, Vice-President and the Rapporteur of the Council, introduced the draft report of the thirty-second session, which was adopted ad referendum.

Speaking in general concluding remarks were Ireland on behalf of a group of countries, Japan and International Service for Human Rights.

The President of the Council, in concluding remarks, said that all acts of intimidation or reprisal against individuals and groups cooperating with the United Nations had to end.

The thirty-third regular session of the Human Rights Council will be held from 13 to 30 September 2016.

Appointment of Special Procedure Mandate Holders

CHOI KYONG-LIM, President of the Council, informed that he had sought legal advice from the Office of Legal Affairs on the manner on which mandate holders could be appointed. The Office of Legal Affairs had been presented with the facts from the previous meeting of the Council, on 1 July. The Office opined that once the presiding officer had gavelled a decision, there was no room for a post-facto review of that decision. However, the Rules of Procedure provided that when a proposal had been adopted, it could not be revised at the same session unless two thirds of members requested so. The Office of Legal Affairs had concluded that the decision of the President stood unless there was a motion for reconsideration under the rule 123 from the Rules of Procedure.

Russian Federation, speaking on behalf of a group of like-minded States, expressed deep regret and concern over the approach chosen by the President regarding the endorsement of the list of candidates for mandate holders. On 1 July, a number of States had expressed a clear preference for a consensual support for the list of candidates, who had called on the President to hold off his proposal and conduct further consultations. The group of countries was of the view that the appointment needed to be reconsidered. If there was an objection raised by a country or a group of countries, the President would need to hold further consultations to ensure the endorsement of proposed candidates. The practice of consensual endorsement of candidates for Special Procedure mandate holders ought to be preserved. It was proposed that four consensual candidates could be adopted today, while a fifth candidate would be decided on through additional consultations. Alternatively, adoption of the whole list could be postponed until the following session. If the list as it currently stood was adopted, it could affect the interaction of the group of like-minded States with the mandate holders.

Namibia expressed its concern over the approach taken on 1 July. Decisions taken in the Council should be consensual as much as possible. Further consultations on the list of candidates would be desirable.

Paraguay stated that mandate holders were among the key pillars of the Human Rights Council. Mandate holders had the necessary knowledge on many issues and topics discussed by the Council in the three annual sessions. It was clear that appointments had to be carried out before the end of each session. Paraguay thus supported the President’s decision.

CHOI KYONG-LIM, President of the Council, explained that his decision could not be reopened unless rule 123 was invoked. Broad consultations in full transparency on appointments of mandate holders would be conducted in the future.

The President confirmed the appointment of the following mandate holders:

Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions - Agnes Callamard (France); Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief - Mr. Ahmed Shaheed (Maldives); Special Rapporteur on the right to education - Ms. Koumbou Boly (Burkina Faso); Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - Tomás Ojea Quintana (Argentina); and Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (member from the Western European and Other States Group) - Anita Ramasastry (United States).

General Comments by Observer States

Azerbaijan made a statement with regard to the resolution on cooperation and assistance to Ukraine in the field of human rights. Worry was expressed over civilian casualties, and the growing number of internally displaced persons and missing persons in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. Azerbaijan supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine and was of the view that the settlement of the present conflict in eastern Ukraine was only possible through dialogue that involved all segments of the Ukrainian society.

Malta, referring to L.7.Rev.1 on discrimination against women, and L.28.Rev.1 on accelerating efforts to eliminate violence against women, stated that there were problematic references to emergency contraception. Malta's principled position was that the right to life extended to an unborn child from the moment of conception. Malta reaffirmed its position that rejected any recommendation that the right to abortion be considered as a legitimate part of reproductive health rights and services.

Sierra Leone, speaking about resolution L31.Rev.1 on the elimination of female genital mutilation, said that Sierra Leona would continue to actively enforce the ban on under-18 initiation of girls, while engaging its public on the future of cultural practices such as female genital cutting. Sierra Leone also applauded the work being undertaken to address the human rights of persons living with albinism.

Egypt said that it was happy that L.35 on the protection of the family had been adopted for the third time, with a constantly growing majority. Egypt was alarmed over the adoption of the deeply flawed L.2.Rev.1, which aimed to establish new rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. The Council did not have the legislative power to create new rights, stressed Egypt. Egypt would not recognize nor would it cooperate with the Independent Expert emanating from L.2.Rev.1.

Japan welcomed the appointment of the five mandate holders, including the one on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Given that there was no international agreement on the right to peace, the adoption of L.18 at the Council, without a consensus reached at the Working Group, was regrettable. Japan hoped that this would not set a precedent.

Uruguay, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, regretted that an amendment had not been accepted to L.35 on the protection of the family. There were different sorts of family, all of which were protected under international legal norms. Human rights and fundamental freedoms of all family members ought to be protected. A monolithic concept of the family should be avoided, and the group of countries expressed opposition to the text adopted.

Nicaragua welcomed the adoption of the resolution on the right to peace. Work needed to be based on peace, dialogue and consensus. Nicaragua was convinced that peace was a keystone for the promotion of human rights and development. Good faith dialogues needed to be promoted.

United States congratulated the Council on the creation of an Independent Expert to protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. It was regrettable that some regressive amendments had been adopted. The United States regretted that one delegation had kept the Council hostage over one mandate holder. The United States was pleased that there had been 101 co-sponsors for the resolution on women and nationality. The United States also welcomed the fact that the mandates on Eritrea and Belarus had been extended.

Czech Republic strongly supported the establishment of the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, under L.2.Rev.1. The Czech Republic opposed the paragraphs voted in the resolution through amendments L.73, L.74, L.75, L.76, L.77, L.78 and L.79, as they were in contradiction with the draft that the Czech Republic had co-sponsored. The new mandate should galvanize the collective action at all levels.

New Zealand supported the creation of the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. New Zealand did not support the amendments to the text adopted last week. Violence and discrimination in all their forms against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people had to be condemned wherever they occurred.

Australia said that it had co-sponsored L.2.Rev.1 on sexual orientation and gender identity, noting that violence and discrimination were always unacceptable. L.29 on civil society space was welcomed, as civil society played an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights. On L.7/Rev.1, Australia was disappointed that language on comprehensive sexuality education had been weakened during negotiations. Regarding the resolution on protection of the family, L.35, it was regretted that the diversity of the family was not reflected.

Canada thanked all States on the consensus adoption of the resolution on eliminating violence against women. Canada was disappointed that several amendments had passed contrary to the spirit of L.2.Rev.1. Women’s participation in the peace process was critical for achieving a just peace in Syria. Gender was an internationally agreed-upon term and should not be ignored. Canada was dismayed at the efforts to limit the participation of civil society in the Council.

Iran, speaking on L.2.Rev.1, reiterated its commitment to pursue a variety of approaches to protect human rights against violence and discrimination, but any approach should address basic social or religious norms and values of communities. Iran would not cooperate with the mandate holder which this resolution had brought about. On L.28, Iran underscored that the term “intimate partner” was neither defined nor recognized in international human rights law.

Comment

Russian Federation, speaking on behalf of the like-minded group of countries, drew attention to the input that the President of the Council had made to the 2016 High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Russia reminded the President of the letter sent to him by the Ambassador of Egypt, on behalf of 17 States. The President of the Council had presented a substantive input on thematic issues, which did not necessarily represent the positions of the Member States of the Council. No instruction had been given by the Council in that regard. The Russian Federation was concerned over the opaque way the incident had been handled. The input submitted by the President could thus not be endorsed by the like-minded group of countries, and efforts would be made to avoid similar occurrences in the future.

Adoption of the Draft Report of the Session

BERTRAND DE CROMBRUGGHE, Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Council, introduced the draft report of the thirty-second session. After the session, the report would be finalized by the Secretariat. The final text of the resolutions and decisions adopted would be available in due course on the Human Rights Council website.

Mr. de Crombrugghe reminded that interactive dialogues had been held with 18 Special Procedure mandate holders and two Commissions of Inquiry. The Council had also adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of 14 countries and appointed five Special Procedure mandate holders.

The Council then adopted the report ad referendum.

General Concluding Remarks

Ireland, speaking on behalf of a cross-regional group of countries, referred to the way the Council could contribute to preventing human rights violations and respond to emergencies. With the Human Rights Up Front action plan in place and modern media, the international community was better aware than ever of the emerging pattern of violations. The group welcomed the new Swiss-led initiative, which aimed at encouraging States, within existing institutional frameworks, to strengthen interaction between the Council and other bodies. The Council could consider whether there was a call for action by the Secretary-General, the Security Council or other United Nations organ. States could decide in an objective manner when country situations should be addressed in an urgent manner.

International Service for Human Rights, in a joint statement with several NGOs¹, said that the Human Rights Council had made history by mandating an Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity. The resolution on civil society space provided critical guidance to States on steps necessary to enable civil society to contribute to human rights and other goals. Dismay was expressed that many situations of serious concern were still lacking attention in the Council’s chamber, including in China, Egypt and Bahrain.

Japan thanked the President for his wise guidance of the session.

Concluding Remarks

CHOI KYONG-LIM, President of the Council, expressed concern that a number of civil society members who had planned to travel to Geneva to attend the current session had been denied exit from their country and placed under a travel ban. That situation was wholly unacceptable. All acts of intimidation or reprisal against individuals and groups cooperating with the United Nations had to end.

In the context of its tenth anniversary, a Human Rights Council Retreat would take place on 1 and 2 September. It would be an informal exchange between Permanent Representatives of the Member States of the Council, coordinators of regional and political groups, and other stakeholders, all with a view of improving cooperation and dialogue, and tackling some of the key questions facing the Human Rights Council today.

¹Joint statement on behalf of: International Service for Human Rights, CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Human Rights Watch, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International Lesbian and Gay Association, and International Commission of Jurists.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC16109E