HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATE OF SPECIAL PROCEDURE ON INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS AS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FOR THREE YEARS
The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted seven resolutions and one decision which, among other things, extended the mandate of the Special Procedure on the human rights of internally displaced persons as a Special Rapporteur for a period of three years; recommended that the General Assembly proclaim 24 March the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations; requested the Advisory Committee to prepare a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace; and asked the Advisory Committee to finalize its report on best practices in the matter of missing persons.
On the mandate of the human rights of internally displaced persons, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Special Procedure on the human rights of internally displaced persons as a Special Rapporteur for a period of three years to address the complex problem of internal displacement and to work towards strengthening the international response to the complex problem of situations of internal displacement.
Concerning the right to the truth, the Council recommended that the General Assembly proclaim 24 March the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims.
With regard to the promotion of the right of peoples to peace, the Council, with a vote of 31 in favour, 14 against and 1 abstention, requested the Advisory Committee to prepare a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace.
The Council also asked the Advisory Committee to finalize the study on best practices in the matter of missing persons and to submit it to the Council at its sixteenth session.
In addition, the Council adopted resolutions on trafficking in persons, especially women and children: regional and sub-regional cooperation in promoting a human rights-based approach to combating trafficking in persons; on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights; on the role of prevention in the promotion and protection of human rights; and on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Speaking this afternoon in introduction of resolutions were Germany, Philippines, Cuba, Ukraine, Austria, Uganda, Azerbaijan, Colombia, El Salvador, and Thailand.
Speaking in general comments were the United States and France on behalf of the European Union
Speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote were France on behalf of the European Union, the United States, Argentina, the United Kingdom and Pakistan.
The President of the Council also announced that the draft resolution on the advisory services and technical assistance to Burundi in the field of human rights had been withdrawn by the sponsors.
The Council will meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 18 June to conclude taking action on draft resolutions and decisions before it concludes its fourteenth regular session.
Action on Draft Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
In a resolution (A/HRC/14/L.4) on trafficking in persons, especially women and children: regional and sub-regional cooperation in promoting a human rights-based approach to combating trafficking in persons, adopted without a vote, the Council urges Governments to incorporate a human rights-based approach into measures taken to prevent and end trafficking in persons and to protect, assist and provide access to adequate redress to victims; emphasizes the importance of giving voice to victims of trafficking; calls upon Governments to consider signing and ratifying relevant United Nations legal instruments; calls upon Governments to take appropriate measures to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, through inter alia: to promote the provision of gender and age sensitive responses which adequately address the needs of women, children and men as victims; to promote an effective prosecutorial and judicial response with a victim-oriented approach; to promote cross-border cooperation of counter-trafficking practitioners; to support legislative or other measures to discourage the demand that fosters all exploitation of persons, including the demand created by sex tourism and forced labour; to alleviate the factors that make persons vulnerable to trafficking, such as poverty, underdevelopment, lack of opportunity, gender inequality and discrimination; to develop and implement information campaigns aimed at promoting awareness of the dangers associated with all forms of trafficking; calls upon all Governments to continue to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons to enable the mandate-holder to fulfil the duties of the mandate effectively.
REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany), introducing draft resolution L.4, said that it continued to reflect the excellent cooperation between Germany and the Philippines that had begun two years ago with the strengthening of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons. The focus of this draft resolution was on regional and sub-regional cooperation in combating and preventing trafficking in persons. The two delegations attached great importance to fostering cooperation on prevention of trafficking in persons on regional and sub-regional levels. A coordinated and comprehensive approach, the exchange of information and good practice and training programmes could be vital in combating this scourge. The delegations of Germany and the Philippines held three open consultations on the draft resolution and held open and frank discussions with other delegations in order to address all relevant concerns and issues. Germany appreciated the great degree of flexibility and compromise exhibited by all delegations. Finally, Germany thanked the delegation of the Philippines on its cooperation in this undertaking.
M. EVAN P. GARCIA (Philippines), also introducing draft resolution l.4, thanked the delegation of Germany for the fruitful cooperation. The majority of the victims of trafficking were children and women and trafficking in persons took place in all countries and regions in the world. It was therefore vital that all countries stood together and cooperated with one another to resolutely fight and prevent trafficking. This draft resolution promoted a human rights-based approach to combat trafficking in persons at the regional and sub-regional level. It urged Governments to incorporate a human rights-based approach into measures taken to prevent and end trafficking in persons. The draft resolution referred to the Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking. The draft called on Governments to take appropriate measures to inter alia promote implementation of legally binding international instruments on combating trafficking in persons. The Philippines thanked the over 60 co-sponsors and delegations who had participated actively in the consultations.
EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in a general comment, said the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated that no one should be held in slavery and that slave trade should be prohibited in all its forms. Slavery was a gross violation of human rights and Governments and Government officials violated human rights when engaged in trafficking. Likewise, business owners who committed trafficking were enemies of human dignity and worse. The United States was committed to address the demand for cheap sex that traffickers met through coercion. In view of the importance of the issue, the United States was pleased to co-sponsor this resolution and thanked Germany and the Philippines for the leadership to bring this issue to the forefront of the Council.
In a resolution (A/HRC/14/L.12) on the promotion of the right of peoples to peace, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 14 against, and 1 abstention, the Council stresses the importance of peace for the promotion and protection of human rights for all; also stresses that the deep fault line between the rich and the poor poses a major threat to global prosperity, peace, human rights, security and stability; further stresses that peace and security, development and human rights are the foundations for collective security and well-being; emphasizes that ensuring the exercise of the right of peoples to peace and its promotion demands that the policies of States be directed towards the elimination of the threat of war, the renunciation of the use or threat of use of force in international relations and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations; reaffirms the duty of all States to use peaceful means to settle any dispute to which they are parties; underlines the vital importance of education for peace as a tool to foster the realization of the right of peoples to peace; supports the need to further promote the realization of the right of peoples to peace and requests the Advisory Committee, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, to prepare a draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace and to report on the progress thereon to the Council at its seventeenth session.
The results of the vote were as follows:
In favour (31): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay and Zambia.
Against (14): Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
Abstention (1): India.
JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba), introducing L.12, said in tabling this resolution Cuba wanted to follow-up on the work conducted in the last four years. The draft resolution recognized the work done by civil society in promoting the right of people to peace. Likewise, it referred to the holding of the workshop held in Geneva and noticed the outcomes of that report as a result of which experts had recommended that human rights be codified. Cuba expressed hope that this draft resolution would be adopted by the Council with broad support which would send a strong message of renewed commitment to promote the right of peoples to peace.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said the draft resolution did not specify that the lack of peace could not justify non-respect of human rights. Furthermore, the draft should have focused on the relationship between a State and its citizens. Most of the issues in this resolution would be better dealt with by other bodies that had more appropriate mandates. France thanked the Cuban delegation for organising the consolations on this draft resolution, but the European Union requested that the draft resolution was put to a vote and would vote against.
EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States was deeply concerned whenever conflict negatively impacted on the human rights of any persons. The draft resolution did not meaningfully promote peace or the right of persons in conflict zones. Instead, it was more concerned with State to State relationships, and the United States said there were other international bodies, in particular the Security Council, that were better equipped to address the issues of international peace and security. The Human Rights Council was more suited to deal with human rights situations around the world and therefore the United States would vote against this resolution.
In a resolution (A/HRC/14/L.13) on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 13 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council recalls that every State has the right and responsibility to choose its means and goals of development and should not be subject to external specific prescriptions for economic policy; reaffirms that the current global financial and economic crises should not result in a decrease in debt relief; affirms that the settlement of excessive vulture funds has a direct negative effect on the capacity of Governments to fulfill their human rights obligations; acknowledges that, in least developed countries and in several low- and middle-income countries, unsustainable levels of external debt continue to create a considerable barrier to economic and social development and increase the risk that the Millennium Development Goals for development and poverty reduction will not be attained; recognizes that debt relief can play a key role in liberating resources that should be directed towards poverty reduction and the achievement of development goals; calls upon creditors and debtors alike to consider the preparation of human rights impact assessments with regard to development projects, loan agreements or Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers; and urges States, international financial institutions and the private sector to take urgent measures to alleviate the debt problem of developing countries particularly affected by HIV/AIDS, so that more financial resources can be used for health care, research and treatment of the population in the affected countries.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (31): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay and Zambia.
Against (13): Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
Abstentions (3): Chile, Mexico and Norway.
M. JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba), introducing L.13, said the economic and financial crises that the world was currently experiencing had had an enormous impact on all countries, particularly on developing countries. If the service for foreign debt, which was already significantly higher than the amount that had been lent, was added to this, that impact would be even greater and the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights of peoples was affected. The draft resolution before the Council drew attention to this issue and attempted to make progress on ways to mitigate that situation, given the adverse impacts of the debt burden. Cuba hoped that this draft resolution would be adopted by a significant majority of the membership of the Council.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said it was important for the European Union that the Human Rights Council had a focused approach. Although there may be a connection between lacking resources and the implementation of human rights obligations, the Council was not the appropriate forum to deal with the resolution before it; it was not right to duplicate the relevant work conducted in other international organizations. The draft resolution obliged the Independent Expert to continue holding such consultations which in the view of the European Union had little to do with the enjoyment of human rights. Given these facts, they requested that the draft resolution be put to a vote, and the European Union would vote against it.
EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States had long recognised the harmful effect of debt on developing countries and therefore debt relief and cancellation had been an important part of official development assistance, particularly for extremely indebted countries. The United States said that it was incorrect to treat the issue of foreign debt as a human rights issue to be dealt with by this Council. Several of the resolutions had no legal grounds in international human rights law and this approach would be counterproductive in that it would deny to the countries the possibility to raise the much needed funds. Given the Human Rights Council’s lack of technical of capacity on this subject, its time should be directed in more appropriate ways. The United States would have to vote against this draft resolution.
In a resolution (A/HRC/14/L.15/Rev.1) on the role of prevention in the promotion and protection of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council recognizes that States have the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of all human rights, and that this responsibility involves all branches of the State; welcomes the role of national human rights institutions in contributing to the prevention of human rights violations, and encourages States to strengthen their mandate and capacity; acknowledges that the Council shall contribute to the prevention of human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies; stresses the importance of effective preventive measures as part of overall strategies for the promotion and protection of all human rights; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult States, national human rights institutions, civil society and other relevant stakeholders, using a questionnaire format, on the conceptual and practical dimensions of prevention with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights, and to compile and publish the responses on the website of the Office; and also requests the Office of the High Commissioner to convene a workshop, based on the above-mentioned consultations, on the role of prevention for the promotion and protection of human rights, with a view to contributing to further discussion on the issue, and to present the summary of the workshop proceedings to the Council at its eighteenth session.
MYKOLA MAIMESKUL (Ukraine), introducing draft resolution L.15/Rev.1, said that the prime objective of this draft was to draw attention to the vital importance of preventive policies, strategies and measures to ensure respect for human rights and avoid their violations. The topic of prevention was somehow sidelined in the work of the Human Rights Council and there were a number of references to it in the concrete preventive measures in a number of international human rights instruments. But they were too scattered to serve as a solid base for a comprehensive preventive strategy in the field of human rights. The promotion of human rights was an important means of protection of rights and prevention strategies were always proactive and much more cost effective in terms of financial and human resources than dealing with human rights violations and their consequences, especially when gross violations of human rights were committed. Prevention required both political will and resources necessary to adopt relevant preventive policies, develop effective preventive strategies and apply concrete preventive measures.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said the prevention of human rights violations was a key instrument in the promotion and protection of human rights and the European Union thus welcomed Ukraine’s initiative to place this subject before the Council. That principle was recognized in several international instruments and documents, including the Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture, as well as resolutions of the Human Rights Council. The European Union took the view that the presentation of this resolution was an opportunity to deepen the concept of prevention, but it regretted that more substantive elements had not been included in the resolution. The European Union also emphasized the role of good governance in creating a conducive situation and thanked Ukraine for its efforts to find an agreement. The European Union reaffirmed its willingness to actively work for the follow-up of this resolution.
In a resolution (A/HRC/14/L.18) on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses concern at the persistent problems of large numbers of internally displaced persons worldwide, in particular the risk of extreme poverty and socio-economic exclusion, their limited access to humanitarian assistance, vulnerability to human rights violations and difficulties resulting from their specific situation, such as lack of food, medication or shelter; expresses particular concern at the grave problems faced by many internally displaced women and children, including violence and abuse, sexual and labour exploitation, trafficking in persons, and forced recruitment and abduction; expresses concern at internal displacement caused by natural disasters, exacerbated by the expected effects of climate change and by poverty; calls upon States to provide durable solutions, and encourages strengthened international cooperation; decides to extend the mandate of the Special Procedure on the human rights of internally displaced persons as a Special Rapporteur for a period of three years: to address the complex problem of internal displacement, in particular by mainstreaming the human rights of the internally displaced into all relevant parts of the United Nations system; and to work towards strengthening the international response to the complex problem of situations of internal displacement and engage in coordinated international advocacy and action for improving protection and respect of the human rights of the internally displaced.
PETER GUSCHELBAUER (Austria), introducing L.18, said Austria traditionally had been presenting resolutions on the human rights of internally displaced persons, and specifically on the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General for this important issue to the former Commission on Human Rights. This year, Austria was happy that more countries than ever, across all regions, had co-sponsored the text. Since its initial establishment in 1992, the mandate had significantly contributed to the strengthening of the international community’s response to internal displacement. Its strong focus on dialogue had allowed the mandate to serve as a focal point and advocate of the United Nations on issues concerning internally displaced persons and the related human rights dimensions.
JUSTINIAN MUHWEZI KATEERA (Uganda), also introducing draft resolution L.18, said there were 25 million internally displaced persons worldwide and that 70 to 80 per cent were women and children. In spite of this serious humanitarian situation, there was an absence of a binding international legal regime that comprehensively provided for the protection and assistance to internally displaced persons. A special Summit of African Union Heads of State had been convened in Kampala and the conference had adopted the African Union Convention for the protection and assistance of internally displaced persons in Africa. This convention was a first step towards filling the void in international humanitarian law and international law. The draft resolution called for cooperation with other agencies and this was in line with the spirit that had informed efforts aimed and dealing with the situation of internally displaced persons.
Action on Decision Under Agenda Item on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms
In a decision (A/HRC/14/L.6) on missing persons, adopted without a vote, the Council takes note of the progress report on best practices in the matter of missing persons submitted by the Advisory Committee (A/HRC/14/42); and requests the Advisory Committee to finalize the study on best practices and to submit it to the Council at its sixteenth session.
HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan), introducing draft resolution L.6, said that the Advisory Committee should have submitted a study on best practices on the matter of missing persons at its fourteenth session. The Advisory Committee had only prepared and submitted the progress report to the current session of the Council. The current draft decision requested the Advisory Committee to finalise and submit the study to the sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council to be held next March. Azerbaijan appealed to all members of the Council to support this procedural draft decision and adopt it without a vote.
Action on Resolution Under Agenda Item on Follow-up and Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
In a resolution (A/HRC/14/L.11) on the Proclamation of 24 March as the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims, adopted by consensus without a vote, the Council recommends that the General Assembly proclaim 24 March the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims; invites all Member States, organizations of the United Nations system and other international organizations, and civil society entities, including non-governmental organizations and individuals, to observe the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims in an appropriate manner; requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all States Members of the United Nations.
ALVARO ENRIQUE AYALA MELENDEZ (Colombia), introducing L.11 on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, thanked all delegations that had supported this initiative.
CARMEN ELENA CASTILLO-GALLANDAT (El Salvador), also introducing the resolution, said that in this resolution the Council requested the United Nations General Assembly to proclaim March 24 as the International Day for the Right to the Truth of Victims of Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims. The 1970s and 1980s had been turbulent times for many countries of the region. At that time, El Salvador went through difficult times, characterized by the police and military authorities, and there had been massive protests and an internal armed conflict that finally finished with United Nations mediation. In this context, Mr. Oscar Romero had made particular efforts. Mr. Romero had always denounced serious human rights violations and ruled out armed conflict and confrontation. Mr. Romero’s dedication to the most vulnerable came to an end with his killing in 1980. With this resolution, El Salvador would like to commemorate all of those who had been victims of gross human rights violations, and all those who had been killed in their fight to promote and protect human rights, as was the case of Mr. Romero.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the right to truth was the right to recognise victims of human rights violations and their families. Above all, it was a call to justice. During the last coup d’etat in Argentina, there were massive violations of human rights and in this context Argentina had adopted the law that highlighted the memory and the need to commemorate victims.
PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United Kingdom fully supported truth and reconciliation and said it was important to enable the victims and societies to come to terms with violations and to move forward. The right to truth could be characterised differently in different legal systems. In the United Kingdom it was characterised as freedom of information. The United Kingdom acknowledged the importance of Mr. Romero and his work for the region and was pleased to support this draft resolution.
ZAHOOR AHMED (Pakistan), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Pakistan supported the overall thrust of the resolution and thanked the sponsors who had accommodated some of its recommendations. The context of the right to the truth had already been elaborated in a Human Rights Council resolution as the right to freedom to seek and impart information. The title had been adapted and Pakistan thanked the sponsors for their understanding.
MARK J. CASSAYRE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States was pleased to join the consensus. The right to the truth served to advance the respect for the rule of law, accountability, justice, and good governance, which were all key principles of a democratic society. The United States strongly supported those principles in practice and had supported programmes which encouraged dialogue, truth commissions, and forensic research in the effort to uncover the truth behind gross human rights violations. The United States observed that the right to the truth was closely related to the right to seek, receive and impart information, and that it may be characterized differently in some legal systems, such as that of the United States as the right to be informed, freedom of information, or the right to know. With regard to the right to know, the United States continued to acknowledge that a right to know was referred to in the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Although the United States was not a party to that instrument, and had no obligations under it vis-à-vis a right to know, it supported the principle that families had a right to know the fate of their missing family members.
Action on Resolution Under Agenda Item on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building
In a resolution (A/HRC/14/L.8) on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia-Pacific Region, adopted by consensus without a vote, the Council requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report containing the conclusions of the fifteenth annual workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region, and to submit it to the Council for its consideration at its fifteenth session; decides to convene the next session of the Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region in the Maldives in 2012.
SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand), introducing draft resolution L.8, said that in April this year Thailand had had the honour to co-host with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the fifteenth Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region in Bangkok. The States had adopted the Bangkok Action Points by consensus, which reaffirmed the commitments of States to develop and strengthen national capacities for the promotion and protection of human rights and had also recognised the important role played by regional arrangement in human rights promotion and protection. Draft resolution L.8 was essentially a procedural one which requested the High Commissioner to prepare a report on the fifteenth Workshop and to submit it to the Council for consideration at its fifteenth session in September this year. Also, the draft resolution proposed that the next session of the Workshop be convened in the Maldives in 2012, in accordance with the decision of the Asian Group earlier this year.
For use of information media; not an official record
HRC10/083E