HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VIENNA DECLARATION

The Human Rights Council held a general debate on the follow-up to and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The Vienna Declaration was adopted on 25 June 1993 with the aim of reaffirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter and affording economic, social and cultural rights the same importance as civil and political rights. The Declaration also drew a direct connection between respect for human rights, democracy and international development and among other things made a direct link between poverty and the realization of human rights.

During the general debate, speakers noted that the Vienna World Conference in 1993 dealt with a number of issues which remained key challenges 17 years later: the universality of human rights and the question of how to deal with traditional or religious particularities; the question of sovereignty; the role of civil society and the situation of vulnerable groups. The Plan of Action reaffirmed the universality and indivisibility of all human rights, yet societies were all too often still caught in thinking on the basis of stereotyped identities and along national, ethnic or linguistic lines, seeking to impose on themselves an ideal of uniformity that was without base.

Speakers also called for the elimination of poverty as a matter of priority, which was a hindrance to the full enjoyment of human rights, and it was noted that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity remained pervasive and in many cases was State-sponsored. The Human Rights Council was urged to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of the Internet and other new information and communication technologies, and to oppose actions that unjustifiably sought to restrict their use. Unrestricted access to new information and communication technologies was an important factor in the realization of human rights and social benefits, including the right to education through e-learning and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental heath through increased availability of online information on nutrition and medicine.

The general debate was suspended for consultations after the delegation of Iran raised a point of order, which was supported by Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan, Malaysia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Algeria and Syria. The delegation noted that this agenda item was to be used to address thematic issues and not for the discussion of situations in specific countries.

Speakers during the general debate included representatives of Spain on behalf of the European Union, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Australia speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, Sweden, Colombia speaking on behalf of the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United States, China, Brazil and Norway on behalf of 54 countries.

The Human Rights Council will next meet at 3 p.m. today when it will begin a general debate on follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which addresses racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance.


General Debate on Follow-up to and Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

JAVIER GARRIGUES (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Vienna World Conference in 1993 dealt with a number of issues which remained key challenges today 17 years later: the universality of human rights and the question of how to deal with traditional or religious particularities; the question of sovereignty; the role of civil society and the situation of vulnerable groups. On these and many other questions, the Plan of Action provided clear answers and commitments which had been endorsed and adopted by all States, and which were as relevant and important today as they were then. The Plan of Action reaffirmed the universality and indivisibility of all human rights, emphasising the duty of all States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to protect and promote all human rights and fundamental freedoms, while recognising the significance of national or regional particularities and various historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Yet societies were all too often still caught in thinking on the basis of stereotyped identities and along national, ethnic or linguistic lines, seeking to impose on themselves an ideal of uniformity that was without base. Governments also agreed in Vienna that the situation of human rights in any country was a legitimate concern of the international community. The Council had a clear mandate to remind States of their obligations, support them in fulfilment thereof, and to address human rights violations wherever and whenever they occurred. Human rights defenders frequently placed their own lives and the lives and well-being of their families at risk in their pursuit of justice - the European Union condemned any and all acts of intimidation against human rights defenders and recalled that it was the responsibility of Governments and individual political leaders to give active support to their efforts to ensure the realization of all human rights in the lives of all human beings.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was a milestone in the history of human rights. The African Group remained fully committed to its implementation and urged the various United Nations human rights mechanisms to play an important part in that regard, and encouraged all States to cooperate. The African Group strongly supported the fundamental principle that all human rights were universal, as stipulated in the Vienna Declaration. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action had emphasised the indivisible and interdependent nature of all human rights. The African Group particularly called for the elimination of poverty as a matter of priority, which was a limit to the full enjoyment of human rights, and expressed its belief that urgent steps were needed to strengthen the human rights of the poorest and put an end to social exclusion. Seventeen years after the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the African Group remained concerned about the existence of racism in many parts of the world. It was the African Group’s hope that the marking of the ten year anniversary of the Durban Declaration would provide the opportunity to assess the progress made in that regard.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action had been a landmark step in evolving a normative and institutional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights. In reality, the existing international order continued to be led by selectivity and economic and political exploitation. The Organization of the Islamic Conference questioned whether the practice of naming and shaming of some countries was the best path towards cooperation and constructive dialogue. The implementation of human rights instruments would remain an uphill struggle as millions of people continued to endure conflicts across the world, especially in the poorest countries; and millions were still under foreign occupation and were denied their fundamental freedoms and human rights, including the right to self-determination. One-third of the world today lived in poverty and the Organization of the Islamic Conference said that the freedom to live in dignity could not be realized until the majority of the population was able to enjoy the benefits of globalization, which so far had been limited to a privileged few. The upcoming twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration of the Right to Development in 2011 presented an opportunity to reflect on how the world had progressed in the struggle against poverty. Emerging challenges and issues should be addressed by international human rights law, such as the growing trend of racism, racial discrimination, including xenophobic tendencies. While the freedom of expression was sacrosanct, it must not be exploited to defame any religion and to incite violence against its followers. This indeed was one of the most serous contemporary challenges of our time and it must be tackled in a comprehensive manner.

ANGELA ROBINSON (Australia), speaking on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, said this month marked the seventeenth anniversary of the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which re-affirmed the universality of all human rights. While progress had been made in some areas to live up to this call, the international community still faced challenges. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity remained pervasive and in many cases was State-sponsored. In many countries, sexual conduct between consenting adults of the same sex was a criminal offence. The proponents of such measures argued that the concept of sexual orientation was not part of universally-accepted human rights discourse. However, laws imposing criminal penalties on the basis of sexual orientation breached a number of core human rights obligations. Domestic court decisions from all regions of the world had held that criminalising same-sex activity violated fundamental human rights. There had been positive developments towards decriminalising such sexual activity. Approximately one third of United Nations Member States retained criminal penalties for same-sex activity. Canada, New Zealand and Australia called on all States that maintained criminal penalties on the basis of sexual orientation to remove such provisions from their Penal Codes.

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden) said with the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action the international community had asserted that all human rights were interdependent and interrelated. Few phenomena had demonstrated the positive potential in this assertion more clearly than new information and communication technologies. Sweden called on the Council to seize this opportunity to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of the Internet and other new information and communication technologies, and to oppose actions that unjustifiably sought to restrict their use. Unrestricted access to new information and communication technologies was an important factor in the realization of human rights and social benefits, including the right to education through e-learning and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental heath through increased availability of online information on nutrition and medicine. None of this was to say that the potential of the new technologies had been fully realized. Quite the contrary: there was a clear tendency to limit the impact of new technologies, and the Internet was often censored and monitored. By increasing the means to give and receive information, new information and communication technologies provided the foundation for the enjoyment of a range of other human rights. The international community should seize this potential.

ALVARO ENRIQUE AYALA MELENDEZ (Colombia), speaking on behalf of the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United States, said that the Governments of those five countries had been pleased to co-sponsor a high-level parallel event on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity. This panel had not been an end in itself and was a part of a broader commitment to work together towards ending discrimination and human rights violations against all those who were marginalised. The values at the core of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action were indeed the very mandate of this Council and Colombia welcomed the recent discussion on the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Issues of sexual orientation and gender identity were sensitive for many and Colombia was heartened by the progress seen at national, regional and international levels. In all regions there was increasing awareness of the importance of respecting the human rights of all persons, including those who were lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It was time for this Council to lend its moral authority to the many voices calling for an end to human rights violations on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

LUO CHENG (China) said the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action reflected the political wisdom of more than 180 countries, reflecting the unremitting efforts of these countries, and clearly provided that all human rights were indivisible, inter-related, and inter-dependent, and that an integrated approach to human rights should be taken. Still under the shadow of the international financial crisis, China was under pressure with regard to its economic growth, but was working to improve the situation for the economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights of its people, as well as their financial situation. Many developing countries still had a long way to go for their comprehensive and sustainable development, as many global issues had made the task difficult for them. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action provided that when dealing with human rights issues it was imperative to take into account ethnic and geographic features, as well as cultural and religious backgrounds. The practice of naming and shaming, and deviation from the rules of procedure could not solve any problems - the Council must do away with double standards and politicisation and improve its dialogue and cooperation, in order to improve its credibility.

ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil) said if the international community was to live up to the achievements of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the task was clear: the international community must make its fundamental tenets more concrete, such as the Human Rights Council’s capacity to address human rights violations. However, the decisions and deliberations of the Council were under the influence of a political nature, both from domestic and international nature. The reason for that was simple; the United Nations was an intergovernmental organization. The key aspect in multilateralism lay in the capacity of the international community to solve problems by peaceful means. For decades in the former Commission of Human Rights the path of confrontation and selectivity had been followed, and the results on the ground had been insufficient. To change that, conditions for confidence-building and peaceful settlement of disputes among States must be created, there needed to be more diplomacy and States must sit around a table and listen to each other. Dialogue and mutual understanding allowed for feasible solutions, at once peaceful and with results on the ground; that was the spirit of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway), on behalf of 54 states, said that those Governments firmly reaffirmed the solemn commitment to the full implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which established the universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence of all human rights. The core function of this Council was to pursue the goals of the Vienna Declaration by providing a forum for an honest and open dialogue among States, where they could share concerns and work together to meaningfully address those concerns. It was in this spirit that the States had joined together in making this Statement to express their concern at the lack of progress in the protection of human rights in Iran, particularly since the elections last June, including the violent suppression of dissent, detention, and executions without due process of law, severe discrimination against women and religious minorities, and restrictions on freedom of expression and religion.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/079E