HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATES ON THE EFFECTS OF FOREIGN DEBT AND ON ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted 10 resolutions, in which it extended the mandates of the Independent Expert of the effects of foreign debt and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances. The Council also adopted resolutions on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on human rights and the environment, on freedom or religion or belief, on the rights of the child, on the role of international cooperation in the realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities, on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, on combating intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, and on cooperation between Tunisia and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Council adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 13 against, and 2 abstentions the resolution on the composition of staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in which it expressed its serious concern at the fact that, despite the measures taken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the imbalance in the geographical representation of its composition continued to be prominent. Cuba introduced the resolution; the United States, Hungary on behalf of the European Union and Switzerland spoke in explanations of the vote before the vote.

Under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, the Council extended for three years the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt, with a vote of 29 in favour, 13 against, and 4 abstentions. The Council requested the Independent Expert to explore further, in his/her analytical annual report to the Human Rights Council, the inter-linkages with trade and other issues, including HIV/AIDS, when examining the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights. Cuba introduced the resolution; Nigeria, Hungary on behalf of the European Union, and the United States spoke in general comments and in explanation of the vote before the vote on this resolution.

The Council also extended without a vote the mandate of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances for a further period of three years and noted with concern that, according to the Working Group, it had insufficient resources to effectively exercise its mandate, particularly in relation to human resources, where there was an acute need, and requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the Working Group receive all the assistance and resources it required to fulfil its mandate. France, Argentina and Morocco introduced the resolution.

Under the same agenda item, the Council adopted texts concerning freedom of religion or belief, in which it expressed deep concern at the emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief, as well as at the increasing number of instances of religious intolerance, discrimination and violence; with regard to human rights and the environment, in which it asked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct, within existing resources, a detailed analytical study on the relationship between human rights and the environment; concerning the rights of the panel on the rights of children living and/or working on the street, in which it requested the High Commissioner to prepare a summary of the full-day meeting on this subject, and decided to focus its next full-day meeting on children and the administration of justice; and on the role of international cooperation in support of national efforts for the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities, in which it requested the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a study on participation in political and public life by persons with disabilities.

Introducing the resolutions were the Maldives, Costa Rica, Hungary on behalf of the European Union and Mexico. Speaking in general comments and in explanations of the vote before the vote on those resolutions were Bangladesh, United States, Brazil, Nigeria and Argentina.

Under its agenda item on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, the Council adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, 1 against, and 16 abstentions the resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, in which it called upon Israel to release immediately the Syrian detainees in Israeli prisons, some of whom had been detained for more than 25 years, and called on Israel to treat them in conformity with international humanitarian law. Pakistan introduced the resolution and Syria spoke as a concerned country. Hungary on behalf of the European Union spoke in explanation of a vote before the vote.

The Council also adopted without a vote the resolution on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief in which it condemned serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or beliefs, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular when condoned by Governments. The Council decided to convene a panel discussion on this issue at its seventeenth session. Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced the resolution. Speaking in general comments or in explanation of the vote before the vote were Saudi Arabia, Norway in a joint statement, the United States and Hungary on behalf of the European Union.

Under its agenda item on technical assistance and capacity building, the Council adopted without a vote the resolution regarding cooperation between Tunisia and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in which it invited all parts of the United Nations system, including the Office of the High Commissioner and Member States, to assist the transitional process in Tunisia, including by supporting the mobilization of resources to tackle the economic and social challenges faced by Tunisia, in coordination with Tunisian authorities. Hungary on behalf of the European Union introduced the text. Tunisia spoke as a concerned country. Speaking in general comments were Iraq, the United States and Nigeria.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council selected Mauritania as the African Group member of the troika for the Universal Periodic Review of Surinam.

The Council will next meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 25 March to continue taking action on draft resolutions and decisions before it concludes its sixteenth session.



Action on Resolution Under Agenda Item on Annual Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Action on Resolution on the Composition of the Staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.19) regarding the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 13 against, and 2 abstentions, the Council expresses its serious concern at the fact that, despite the measures taken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the imbalance in the geographical representation of its composition continues to be prominent, and that a single region occupies more posts in both the professional and technical categories, as well as permanent and temporary categories, than the other four regions combined; welcomes the statement made by the High Commissioner in her report that achieving geographical balance in the staff of her Office will remain one of her priorities, and requests the High Commissioner to continue to take all measures needed to redress the current imbalance in geographical distribution of the staff of the Office; requests the High Commissioner to work on the broadest geographical diversity of her staff by enhancing the implementation of measures to achieve a better representation of countries and regions that are unrepresented or underrepresented, particularly from the developing world, while considering applying a zero-growth cap on the representation of countries and regions already overrepresented in the Office of the High Commissioner; requests future High Commissioners to continue to enhance the ongoing efforts made in the fulfilment of the goal of a geographical balance in the composition of the staff of the Office; underlines the importance of continuing to promote geographical diversity in the recruitment of and promotion to high-level and Professional posts, including senior managers, as a principle of the staffing policies of the Office of the High Commissioner; and requests the High Commissioner to submit a comprehensive and updated report to the Council at its nineteenth session, in accordance with its annual programme of work, following the structure and scope of her report and with a special focus on further measures taken to correct the imbalance in the geographical composition of the staff of the Office.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (13): Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America.

Abstentions (2): Chile, and Republic of Korea.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba), introducing the draft resolution, said that Cuba wished to restate the importance of the issues addressed in this draft resolution which considered the principle of equitable geographical representation in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and would reaffirm the importance of reaffirming the geographical balance and rectify the existing geographical imbalance and the adoption of this resolution would give a clear message on the necessity to rectify the existing imbalance in the composition of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

There were 23 additional co-sponsors for this draft resolution.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States strongly agreed that the paramount decision in the employment of staff should be based on their competence and that there should be a wide geographic representation in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. However, the United States believed that the resolution before the Council was not an appropriate means to achieve this. The Council should not instruct the United Nations on matters of staffing. The United States would vote “no” on the resolution.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the General Assembly was the only competent body to address the issue of staffing, on principles of professionalism. The latest report of the High Commissioner on the issue noted progress on the issue of geographical distribution of the staff of the Office and the Human Rights Council should recognise the effort in establishing geographical balance in the Office. The European Union supported the Secretary-General’s efforts to improve geographical and gender balance throughout the United Nations. The Council had no competence to address the staffing of the Office or to cap the number of staff, said the European Union. The European Union recognised that co-sponsors of the initiative were aware of the work undertaken by the High Commissioner and the position of the European Union remained unchanged. The European Union called for a vote on the draft resolution L.19 and said it would vote against it.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that in the report on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the High Commissioner had said that progress had been made on the composition of her staff. The High Commissioner’s Office was part of the United Nations and everything which regarded the management of resources by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights needed to be addressed by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly. It was important that this Committee discuss this issue. In addition, Switzerland noted that operative paragraph five contained two elements that were contrary to what was adopted by the General Assembly which had reiterated in the resolution that this system was aimed to address countries rather than group regions. For this reason, Switzerland would vote “no” on the text of the resolution.

Action on Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

Action on Resolution on Human Rights and the Environment

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.7) regarding human rights and the environment, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in consultation with and taking into account the views of States Members of the United Nations, relevant international organizations and intergovernmental bodies, including the United Nations Environment Programme and relevant multilateral environmental agreements, special procedures, treaty bodies and other stakeholders, to conduct, within existing resources, a detailed analytical study on the relationship between human rights and the environment, to be submitted to the Human Rights Council prior to its nineteenth session; and decides to consider the above-mentioned study and possible next steps at its nineteenth session under agenda item 3.

AISHATH LIUSHA ZAHIR (Maldives), speaking on behalf of cross regional States in introduction of resolution L.7, said the Maldives was one of the most environmentally vulnerable countries in the world. The future of the country depended on the protection of the coral reefs, clean sea water and abundant sea life. A founding premise of the resolution was that an environment was fundamental to the enjoyment of human rights and that certain populations, notably women, children, the elderly and indigenous peoples were the most vulnerable in situations in which the environment was not protected. The draft resolution would build on resolutions that emphasized that human rights and the environment were a part of a process of sustainable development. The draft resolution asked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult with stakeholders and to issue a report on the relation between human rights and the environment and climate change. There were four oral revisions to the draft resolution.

MARIO VEGA HERNANDEZ (Costa Rica), also introducing the resolution, thanked the co-sponsors of this resolution and said that this resolution was about the environment but focused on human rights. Costa Rica gave special importance to this subject matter and they called upon other delegations to co-sponsor the resolution and they would like to see this resolution adopted by consensus.

The President of the Council informed that there were 29 additional co-sponsors to this resolution.

MD. ABDUL HANNAN (Bangladesh), speaking in a general comment, said that Bangladesh agreed with the Maldives that the environment was a large and complex issue. Considering the challenges posed by climate change, Bangladesh intended to build on previous resolutions on climate change and looked forward to discussing the issue with other delegations in future sessions of the Human Rights Council.

MARK J. CASSAYRE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States believed that the protection of the environment and its contribution to sustainable development, human well-being and the enjoyment of human rights were vitally important. The United States had concerns regarding the general approach of placing environmental concerns in the human rights context. The United States also had significant concerns regarding the appropriate mandates for the United Nations. In discussions on international environmental governance and the institutional framework for sustainable development in other fora, such as the United Nations Environment Programme and the preparatory meetings of Rio +20, there was consensus on the need to restrict discussion on environment issues to fewer United Nations organizations and multilateral environment agreements. This resolution countered efforts and undermined attempts to streamline the United Nations system and improve its efficiently. The United States would not accept any interpretation of Principle 7 that would imply a recognition or acceptance by the United States of any international obligations or liabilities or any diminution in the responsibilities of developing countries.

CARLOS EDUARDO DA CUNHA OLIVEIRA (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the threat posed by climate change had an impact on human rights. In recognition of this, States had agreed to international obligations to tackle the causes of environmental problems. States had also agreed that the individual burden within this collective effort should acknowledge the fact that each member of the international community had a different responsibility to environmental problems.

The level of compliance of States to such commitments had a bearing on the human rights of populations affected by environmental degradation. Brazil believed that a debate on human rights and environmental issues should not be limited to the human rights impact of response measures to environmental problems.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed its appreciation to the Maldives for their clarity throughout the negotiations on the resolution on human rights and the environment. Within the environmental arena, there was no instrument that was called environmental instrument; there was a subset of instruments within environment and it was because it was very difficult to have a global integrated instrument. That was also a reason why the world still did not have an agreement on climate change or biodiversity. The focus of the environment, development and human rights would be lost if it would be dealt with within the human rights context. Nigeria appreciated that the sponsors of the resolution did not push for a mandate on environment and human rights. If the environment had been brought into the Human Rights Council, all the difficulties in negotiating climate change and environment in other fora would be transplanted and would add to already complex issues the Council was dealing with.

HECTOR RAUL PELAEZ … (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Argentina was able to support the resolution. The preamble could give the impression of supporting a concept that did not go along with the sustainable commitment to the environment of the United Nations. In that regard, the Council should be mindful that in the sustainable development commission there were three parts: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental balance. Argentina believed the Council should not predetermine the outcome of negotiations when it came to climate change and biodiversity.

Action on Resolution on Rights of the Child

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.13/Rev.1) regarding rights of the child: a holistic approach to the protection and promotion of the rights of children working and/or living on the street, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council strongly condemns the violations and abuses of the rights of children living and/or working on the street, including discrimination and stigmatization and lack of access to basic services, including education and basic health care, and all forms of violence, abuse, maltreatment, neglect or negligent treatment experienced by them, such as exploitation, gender-based violence, trafficking, forced begging and hazardous work, forced recruitment by armed forces and armed groups, forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings; urges States to ensure a holistic child rights and gender-based response to the phenomenon of children working and/or living on the street, within the context of comprehensive domestic child protection strategies, with realistic and time-bound targets and sufficient financial and human resources for their implementation, including arrangements for the monitoring and regular review of action taken; calls on States to give priority attention to the prevention of the phenomenon of children working and/or living on the street by addressing its diverse causes through economic, social and educational strategies; requests the High Commissioner to prepare a summary of the full-day meeting on the rights of the child, as a follow-up to paragraph 7 of Council resolution 7/29 of 28 March 2008, before the seventeenth session of the Council; and decides to continue its consideration of the question of the rights of the child in accordance with its programme of work and Council resolution 7/29, and to focus its next full-day meeting on children and the administration of justice.

LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE (Uruguay), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) in a general comment, said that they had needed to be consulted before on amendments on this resolution. They believed the Nigerian delegation would now take the floor.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group in a general comment, said it withdrew its previous proposals.

LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE (Uruguay), further introducing the draft resolution, referred to the draft resolution L13 Rev. 1 and in line with the spirit of transparency particularly in relation to initiatives regarding the rights of the child, presented two oral revisions on the text. Only the rights of the child were being considered in the resolution and those who were particularly vulnerable and needed to be protected.

The resolution L13 Rev.1 was introduced and discussed in the morning meeting and the summary of the relevant statements can be found in press release HRC/11/ 50.

Action on Resolution on Freedom of Religion or Belief

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.14) regarding freedom of religion or belief, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council expresses deep concern at the emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief, as well as at the increasing number of instances of religious intolerance, discrimination and violence; condemns all forms of violence, intolerance and discrimination based on or in the name of religion or belief, as well as violations of the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, as well as any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means; also condemns recent violence and acts of terrorism targeting persons belonging to religious minorities across the world; emphasizes that States have an obligation to protect persons belonging to religious minorities and should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against them, regardless of the perpetrator, and that failure to do so may constitute a human rights violation; urges States to step up their efforts to protect and promote freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief; calls upon States to make use of the potential of school education for the eradication of prejudices and stereotypes against members of other religions or beliefs; welcomes the report presented by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, on freedom of religion or belief and school education; urges all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, to respond favourably to his requests to visit their countries and to provide him with all necessary information to enable him to fulfil his mandate even more effectively; and decides to remain seized of this question under the same agenda item and to continue consideration of measures to implement the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union in introduction of resolution L.14, said that the freedom of religion and belief was a fundamental freedom. The draft resolution was based on consensual language with a focus on religious monitories and no one religion or belief was singled out because there could not be a hierarchy of religions or beliefs. The international community should send a strong message in favour of religious tolerance. The European Union believed education was an important tool to promote religious tolerance. The draft resolution was the result of extensive negotiations and the European Union thanked the delegation of Pakistan for their consideration of this resolution and hoped that the resolution would be approved with consensus.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking in a general comment, said that this resolution was a very important one. However, in operative paragraph 11 Nigeria proposed a change; instead of “welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur”, they would like to say “notes with interest the report of the Special Rapporteur”. However, this change had already been made in the updated text.

Action on Resolution on the Mandate of the Independent Expert on Foreign Debt

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.18) regarding the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, as orally revised, adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, 13 against, and 4 abstentions, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, for a period of three years; requests the Independent Expert to explore further, in his/her analytical annual report to the Human Rights Council, the inter-linkages with trade and other issues, including HIV/AIDS, when examining the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, and also to contribute, as appropriate, to the process entrusted with the follow-up to the International Conference on Financing for Development, with a view to bringing to its attention the broad scope of his/her mandate; also requests the Independent Expert to continue to seek the views and suggestions of States, international organizations, United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, regional economic commissions, international and regional financial institutions and non-governmental organizations on the draft general guidelines with a view to improving them, as appropriate, and to present updated draft general guidelines to the Council; and further requests the Independent Expert to cooperate, in accordance with his/her mandate, with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as with the Advisory Committee, special procedures, mechanisms and relevant working groups of the Council related to economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development, in his/her work towards the improvement of the above-mentioned draft general guidelines.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (29): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (13): Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America.

Abstentions (4): Chile, Gabon, Mexico, and Norway.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba), speaking in introduction of resolution L.18 on the mandate of the Independent Expert on foreign debt, said the Cuban delegation had the honour of submitting the draft resolution which had the support of 17 additional co-sponsors. The draft resolution aimed to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on a topic that was of particular interest for developing countries. The resolution would allow the Council to tackle the issue of foreign debt and to tackle economic, social and cultural rights in developing countries. The draft resolution would also enable the Council to continue its work on the draft general guidelines on foreign debt. Cuba read an oral amendment to the text after opening paragraph 5. Cuba hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted with the broadest support from the Council.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking in a general comment, thanked Cuba for initiating this resolution because the issue dealt with in the resolution represented a serious problem for the developing countries. Nigeria said that in the text of the resolution after “Independent Expert” they would like the following wording “within the scope of his/her mandate” to be added.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union believed it was important for the Council to maintain a focused approach. There was no need to duplicate the work of other United Nations bodies on foreign debt. The European Union would like to pursue a continuation of this discussion in the appropriate forum and due to the serious concerns it had with some parts of the text it would call for a vote on the draft resolution.

MARK CASSAYRE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, recognized the potentially harmful efforts that excessive debt burdens could have on developing countries, especially heavily indebted poor countries. As such, debt relief continued to be an essential part of the United States’ foreign aid programme. Unfortunately, continuing the mandate of the Independent Expert did not simply further the inappropriate treatment of this important issue as a human rights problem. It also diverted the focus and finances of this Council away from serious human rights issues that more urgently required the Council’s attention. Given the Human Rights Council’s lack of technical competency on this subject, they regretted that resources continued to be allocated to this subject. The Council’s limited time and resources should be deployed in other, and more appropriate and effective ways.

Action on Resolution on Role of International Cooperation in Support of National Efforts for the Realization of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.20) regarding the role of international cooperation in support of national efforts for the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council welcomes the fact that, to date, one hundred and forty-seven States and one regional integration organization have signed and ninety-nine States ratified or acceded to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and that ninety States have signed and sixty-one States have ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol, and calls upon those States and regional integration organizations that have not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention and the Optional Protocol to consider doing so as a matter of priority; calls upon States parties to the Convention to ensure that all international cooperation measures in the disability field are consistent with their obligations under the Convention; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a study on participation in political and public life by persons with disabilities, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, and requests that the study be made available on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner in an accessible format prior to the nineteenth session of the Council; and requests the Secretary-General to continue to ensure that the Office of the High Commissioner, in its mandates on the rights of persons with disabilities, and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are given adequate resources for the fulfilment of their tasks.

SALVADOR TINAJERO (Mexico), speaking in introduction of resolution L.20, said that along with the co-sponsor of the draft resolution, New Zealand, there were 75 co-sponsors who were deeply committed to the rights of persons with disabilities. The Council’s work in this area should be focused, inclusive and gradual. The rights of persons with disabilities should be included in a cross cutting fashion throughout all United Nations institutions. The draft resolution highlighted the important role of international cooperation and called on States to strengthen cooperation amongst one another. Mexico was aware of the obstacles faced by persons with disabilities and next year the Council would focus on this issue with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights providing a study on persons with disabilities to be presented in the nineteenth session of the Council. The resolution would bring the experience of Member States to the debate. Mexico thanked the co-sponsors for their unfailing commitment to this initiative and looked forward to cooperating with all stakeholders in society. Mexico introduced oral amendments in opening paragraph 5.

Action on Resolution on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.23) regarding enforced or involuntary disappearances, adopted without a vote as orally revised, 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 Disappearances to consider doing so as a matter of priority, and to consider as well the option provided for in articles 31 and 32 of the Convention regarding the Committee on Enforced Disappearances; decides to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a further period of three years, in conformity with the terms set forth in the Human Rights Council resolution 7/12; calls upon States that have not provided for a long period of time substantive replies concerning claims of enforced disappearances in their countries to do so, and to give due consideration to relevant recommendations concerning this issue made by the Working Group in its reports; notes with concern that, according to the Working Group, it has insufficient resources to effectively exercise its mandate, particularly in relation to human resources, where there is an acute need, and requests the Secretary-General to ensure that the Working Group receives all the assistance and resources it requires to fulfil its mandate; decides to continue consideration of the question of enforced disappearances in accordance with its programme of work.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), introducing the draft resolution L. 23, said that this resolution was a procedural one aimed at extending the mandate of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances for a period for three years and it was the result of consultation with different members and the 50 States that co-sponsored this text. The Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances was the first thematic Special Procedure created in the work of human rights and had played a key role on fighting against enforced disappearances. At the same time many cases had not been yet resolved and much work still needed to be carried out. The extension of this mandate was necessary and they made some changes in PP 2 and pp 6, 7, 8, and 9 in OP 3. A new OP5 been had been added. Finally the last part of OP 6 had been modified. France would like to see this resolution approved by consensus and reaffirmed their commitment to combat enforced disappearances.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina), speaking in introduction of resolution L.23, said that this was not just another human rights Working Group because since the return to democracy Argentina had attached a real priority to preventing forced disappearances not only domestically but internationally. Over the last 30 years the Working Group had done important work, particularly in the right to truth which Argentina believed constituted important input into the progressive development of international human rights law. Today, 24 March was the International Day on the Right to Truth. Argentina also supported the Conventions that were included in the draft resolution.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), also introducing resolution L.23, said that the mandate of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances had evolved over the years since it had been established by the Human Rights Commission in 1980. Morocco believed it was important for the international community to continue its fight against this crime. The presentation of the draft resolution today reflected the resolve of Morocco to fight enforced disappearances and showed that Morocco was resolved to address the very painful issue of enforced disappearances. The King of Morocco had given great importance to this issue in his speech of 9 March, in which he had launched constitutional reform in Morocco. Morocco wished to see this draft resolution adopted by consensus.

Action on Resolution Under Agenda Item on Human rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories

Action on Resolution on Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.2) regarding human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, 1 against, and 16 abstentions, the Council: calls upon Israel to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council; also calls upon Israel to desist from its continuous building of settlements and to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan; further calls upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and to desist from its repressive measures against them; calls upon Israel to allow the Syrian population of the occupied Syrian Golan to visit their families and relatives in the Syrian motherland under the supervision of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and to rescind its decision to prohibit these visits, as it is in flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; also calls upon Israel to release immediately the Syrian detainees in Israeli prisons, some of whom have been detained for more than 25 years, and calls on Israel to treat them in conformity with international humanitarian law; further calls upon Israel, in this connection, to allow delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Syrian prisoners of conscience and detainees in Israeli prisons accompanied by specialized physicians to assess the state of their physical and mental health and to protect their lives; requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all Governments, the competent United Nations organs, specialized agencies, international and regional intergovernmental organizations and international humanitarian organizations, to disseminate it as widely as possible and to report on this matter to the Council at its next main session; and decides to continue the consideration of the human rights violations in the occupied Syrian Golan at its next main session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (29): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Ghana, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (16): Belgium, Cameroon, France, Gabon, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing the draft resolution L. 2, said that since the occupation of the Syrian Golan in 1967, Israel had committed grave and systematic violations of human rights of Syrian citizens living there, as well as the detention, prosecution and torture of whoever refused these measures. The systematic and gross violations had to be highlighted and a strong message had to be sent to the victims. In the preamble paragraph the draft resolution made reference to the provisions of international humanitarian law and international law and similarly the operative paragraphs focused on the dire human rights violations of the Syrian citizens resulted from the Israeli authorities. Pakistan regretted the fact that some delegations presented addition requirements that did not protect fully the rights of the Syrian citizens and hoped that the text would join consensus.

The President of the Council informed the Council that there were two additional co-sponsors of the resolution.

FAYSAL KHABBAS HAMOUI (Syria), speaking as a concerned country, said that there had been human rights violations committed by Israel in the Occupied Syrian Golan. Israel had flouted the resolutions of the Council and had violated the rights of inhabitants, including the right to life, housing and movement of the inhabitants of the Syrian Golan to other parts of Syria and the right to health. There was harsh treatment of Syrian detainees in prisons that had led to deaths as stated by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The draft resolution called on Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Syrian Golan based on the Madrid Agreement and various resolutions of the United Nations. The resolution called for pressure to be placed on Israel to release Syrian detainees that had been imprisoned for over 20 years and for Israel to stop trying to change the demographic characteristics of the Golan. The resolution also called on Member States not to recognize any measures taken by the Occupying Power. Syria called on all Member States to adopt the resolution which would send a message to the victims of the occupation that they should persevere and would send a message to Israel that they would not be above the law.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union had demonstrated its willingness to fully engage on the text and to engage in a constructive manner to improve it. However, it had not yielded results and the text tabled was a version that the European Union could not support. For those reasons the European Union called for a vote on this resolution and said it would abstain.

Action on Resolution on Combating Intolerance and Violence against Persons Based on Religion or Belief

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.38) regarding combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or beliefs, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular when condoned by Governments; expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth in this resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents; calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full respect and protection for places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction; calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a panel discussion on this issue at its seventeenth session.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference draft resolution L.38, said that this draft resolution addressed a number of issues over which the Organization of the Islamic Conference had expressed concern for many years. This resolution would not substitute the resolution against defamation of religion. This resolution identified ways and means to deal with the problem of religious intolerance. At the heart of the resolution there were a series of practical steps that needed to be taken by States in order to apply the resolution. The Organization of the Islamic Conference during this process of consultation had ensured that this text would bind all States to the commitments inherent in the resolution and they had showed a spirit of constructive dialogue. Muslims continued to be stigmatized and subjected to violence on the basis of their religion. The act of terrorism on September 11, 2001 provided the trigger and no distinction had been made between terrorism and peaceful Muslims around the world. Muslims were manipulated by western politicians to gain political mileage in their country. There were even restrictions on shops selling halal food and an increasing discrimination against Muslims in various parts of the world. Their businesses were repeatedly scrutinized and they felt unwelcomed in society where they lived as minorities. The efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to defend their religions had always been underrepresented and rejected as undermining the freedom of expression or opinion and it was appropriate to try to explain their faith and principles.

The Koran underlined the need for tolerance and freedom of opinion and it also spoke about the treatment of non Muslims who were not only bound by temporary law but also the basic human rights in the Koran which included the right to life, justice, equality, of a minimum standard of living, freedom of expression, and the right to oppose to tyranny and injustice. Islam had even established a code for the rights of combatants in war and they underscored the common principles that underlined their faith. Given the tremendous contribution of Islam in various spheres of human rights, they believed that irrespective of various religions, there was an interest to show respect towards religions and avoid discrimination on the basis of religion of belief. The resolution also called for a global dialogue for the recognition of a culture of peace and tolerance and they hoped that this resolution would be adopted by consensus.

The President informed the Council that there were four additional co-sponsors for this draft resolution.

AHMED SULEIMAN IBRAHIM ALAQUIL (Saudi Arabia), speaking in a general comment, said Saudi Arabia thanked Pakistan for its efforts and said the text contained many positive points, including protecting places of worship, combating religious fanaticism and preventing the incitement to violence in the media. The recent burning of the Koran in the United Sates was a call for all Member States to work on this issue.

BEATE STIRO (Norway), speaking in a general comment in a joint statement, said that they were deeply concerned about discrimination and violence based on religion or belief in many parts of the world. This issue must be addressed together and its importance should not be underestimated. They greatly appreciated the efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to move the debate forward and to enable the Council to adopt the resolution by consensus. The Human Rights Council must remain seized with questions pertaining to freedom of religion or belief, discrimination and incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief. They hoped that this process would inspire the Council in reaching consensus on other important issues before this Council.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in a general comment, said that they were pleased to join consensus on this resolution and thanked the Ambassador of Pakistan and the United Kingdom and they hoped that the international community would take action for the respect of religions. It was worrying that in the twenty-first century discrimination based on religion and belief still existed. They also were convinced that restrictions on freedom of belief were counterproductive and laws that criminalized freedom of expression had been misused. The resolution recognized the importance to an open public debate of ideas rather than laws that restricted freedom of expression in the name of tolerance. There must be a call for action to take the measures specified in the resolution and the United States called on States to provided updates on the efforts that they had made in this regards. The United States would be working to develop policies to promote this goal.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, said the European Union firmly believed that tolerance of religious expression and freedom of religion and belief were fundamental to all the basic concepts on which European Union States were founded. It was important to distinguish between promoting religious hatred and intolerance and other religious beliefs. The European Union said that the freedom of expression and freedom of religion were mutually reinforcing. The European Union had consistently voted against resolutions that had been submitted previously in this area but the one before the Council now asked difficult questions as to a State’s responsibilities to promote dialogue and inclusiveness. The European Union said that dialogue would allow for a better understanding on both sides and believed that this resolution would allow for future work and would support the resolution. The European Union did not agree with the allegations made by the delegation of Pakistan.

Action on Resolution Under Agenda Item on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building

Action on Resolution on Cooperation between Tunisia and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/32) regarding cooperation between Tunisia and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council salutes the courage of the people of Tunisia and strongly supports the efforts of the transitional Government towards a swift and peaceful political transition and the full realization of human rights; welcomes the assessment mission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to Tunisia and its report, as well as the decision, upon the invitation extended by the transitional Government, to set up a country office of the Office of the High Commissioner in Tunisia; encourages the Transitional Government to continue to work in implementing the recommendations it accepted from the Office of the High Commissioner of its mission report; also encourages the Transitional Government to continue its efforts to ensure accountability for human rights violations; invites all parts of the United Nations system, including the Office of the High Commissioner and Member States, to assist the transitional process in Tunisia, including by supporting the mobilization of resources to tackle the economic and social challenges faced by Tunisia, in coordination with Tunisian authorities; commends the Tunisian people for the solidarity shown to refugees and the assistance extended to them; and invites the High Commissioner to continue to cooperate with the Tunisian authorities on this matter.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union in introduction of resolution L.32, said Tunisia had gone through challenges in economic growth and political stability. The European Union supported Tunisia in its transition to democracy and believed the setting up of a human rights office in Tunisia by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would assist the development of human rights. The Transitional Government of Tunisia had accepted all of the High Commissioner’s recommendations and had begun the implementation process on these recommendations. The resolution would support Tunisia in these efforts and asked all Member States to support the resolution. The text had been drafted in full cooperation with Tunisia and both the African and Arab groups had supported the resolution.

The Representative of Iraq, speaking in a general comment, said that taking into account the interest of the country concerned, they supported Tunisia.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in a general comment, said that the United States endorsed the United Nations efforts in assisting the transitional process in Tunisia in accordance with the priorities set by the Government of Tunisia. The United States welcomed Tunisia’s standing invitation to the Special Procedures and the invitation to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to open the office. The United Nations must work together with all countries in transition to address requests for technical assistance. The Tunisian people had demonstrated to the world that peaceful transition was possible and the United States wished the Tunisian people progress and prosperity. The United States was ready to assist Tunisia in this process. The United States commended the adoption of laws in Tunisia to ratify a number of international human rights instruments and treaties.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group in a general comment, said that the African Group supported Tunisia in its efforts to stand up for democracy. The international community should support Tunisia and the African Group would always help other African members. The African Group said that the European Union had made efforts, after initial mistakes, to reach out on this resolution and based on the flexibility shown, the African Group decided to accept the resolution.

MOHAMED SAMIR KOUBAA (Tunisia), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the co-sponsors of the draft resolution that sent support to Tunisia and the democratic transition. Tunisia also thanked the European Union for their initiative and support and the President of the Africa Group and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries for all of their support. The people of Tunisia had shown responsibility towards the unprecedented movement led by young generations. The Transitional Government had expressed its commitment to implement the demands of the population by putting human rights at the heart of the concerns and had tried to improve the security of the country. Tunisia was aware that further measures needed to be taken. Tunisia had acceded to various conventions and withdrew their reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Tunisia was taking measures to deal with the violations committed by the previous regime and investigations were being carried out. The discrepancy between the legal text and practices had also been addressed to ensure the harmonious function of all mechanisms. Their priority was holding free and democratic elections and the creation of a Constituency Assembly was the first step. Tunisia thanked all the countries that had shown solidarity.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC11/051E