COUNCIL HOLDS PANEL ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PARLIAMENTS TO THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL AND ITS UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on the contribution of parliaments to the work of the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review.

Luis Gallegos Chiriboga, Vice President of the Human Rights Council and moderator of the panel discussion, said today’s panel aimed at discussing and exploring the better modalities for an increased parliamentary contribution to the work of the Human Rights Council, in particular its Universal Periodic Review.

Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, opened the panel discussion by saying that parliaments could play a leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights for all. However, reality often fell short of that goal; what could be done to remedy the problem? Ms. Pillay stressed that parliamentarians had a critical role to play and invited the Council to continue considering every possible instance to strengthen the relation among parliaments, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Council.

Anders B. Johnsson, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, also in an opening statement, said that the Inter-Parliamentary Union worked closely with the Office of the High Commissioner and raised awareness about the Universal Periodic Review and other vital work. Concrete recommendations included that the Human Rights Council adopt an official statement or resolution that acknowledged the role that parliaments could play in its work, and a number of further suggestions about how parliaments and the Human Rights Council could work fruitfully together.

The panellists were Eustace Lake, Member of the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda and Chairperson of the Commonwealth Caribbean Parliamentary Human Rights Group; Juana Kweitel, Program Director of Connectas Human Rights; Laszlo Borbely, Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Romanian Chamber of Representatives; Loretta Rosales, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and former member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines; and Jorge Villarino Marzo, Director of International Relations at the General Secretariat of the Congress of Deputies of Spain.

Eustace Lake, Member of the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda and Chairperson of the Commonwealth Caribbean Parliamentary Human Rights Group, highlighted the potential of the Belgrade Principles on the relationship between national human rights institutions and parliaments. The Commonwealth Secretariat supported initiatives aimed at the establishment and strengthening of national human rights institutions.

Juana Kweitel, Program Director of Connectas Human Rights, said that parliaments had a fundamental role to play in building the normative framework of human rights, including the approval of international instruments and their incorporation into the legal system. Parliaments could play an important role in ensuring that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism worked in the national sphere. Connectas’ experience showed that added value could be achieved from the interaction between civil society and parliaments.

Laszlo Borbely, Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Romanian Chamber of Representatives, said he appreciated the idea of establishing a dialogue between the Human Rights Council and national parliaments. In Romania minority groups were represented in parliament, and this showed how parliaments could support rights at the domestic level.

Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and former member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, said that politicians should never lose sight of their duty to raise issues relating to human rights in public debate and to help forge a national consensus to uphold human rights. In the Philippines one of the mandates of the Commission was to monitor government compliance with its human rights treaties obligations.

Jorge Villarino Marzo, Director of International Relations at the General Secretariat at the Congress of Deputies of Spain, said that the promotion of human rights was key to parliament’s daily work and this was clear in the Spanish Constitution. It was up to parliament to approve and amend laws that regulated the exercise of fundamental freedoms and rights. Meanwhile, there was a need to bring parliamentary work more in line with the Universal Periodic Review.

In the discussion, speakers said that the principle of parliaments working closely with each other through the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and with the Human Rights Council and the Inter-Parliamentary Union was an important one worth upholding. However, awareness of the modalities of cooperation and best practices was low and some scepticism about this remained. Nevertheless, speakers were upbeat about the added-value that paying attention to these matters could yield. National parliaments should work closely with the Council and should also be consulted in the preparation of reports for the Universal Periodic Review

Speaking in the discussion were Spain, Ecuador on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Brazil, Indonesia, Venezuela, Thailand, Maldives, Chile, Algeria, Gabon, Egypt, Cuba, Iran, Morocco, Bahrain, Australia, Montenegro, United States, Ethiopia, Poland, United Kingdom and Libya.

The non-governmental organization Universal Periodic Review Info also took the floor.

The Human Rights Council will resume its work at noon today with an urgent debate on the deteriorating situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic and the recent killings in Al Qusayr.

Opening Statements

LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, Vice President of the Human Rights Council and moderator of the panel discussion, said today’s panel aimed at discussing and exploring the better modalities for an increased parliamentary contribution to the work of the Human Rights Council, in particular its Universal Periodic Review. To this end, the panel discussion would examine ways for parliaments to provide assistance to the Human Rights Council and for the Council to provide input into the work of the parliaments and the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her opening address said that parliaments could play a leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights for all, and they incarnated the human right of everyone to participate in current affairs. Action taken by parliaments could have an enormous impact on human rights at the international level. However, reality often fell short of that goal, so today’s discussion would be exploring why that had been the case and what could be done to remedy the problem. The Universal Periodic Review was a remarkable mechanism and a cooperative process which reminded all States of their responsibility to fulfill all human rights and fundamental freedoms. It had also laid the foundation for sustainable information collection and dissemination, which was essential for ensuring the implementation of human rights obligations at the national level and cooperation at the international level. Parliaments were key players regarding the implementation of recommendations by the Universal Periodic Review and other mechanisms, yet the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review failed to see significant participation by parliaments. Ms. Pillay stressed that parliamentarians, their staff and institutions had a critical role to play in promoting, protecting and respecting international human rights obligations and fundamental freedoms. She concluded by inviting the Council to continue considering every possible instance to strengthen the relation among parliaments, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Council.

ANDERS B. JOHNSSON, Inter-Parliamentary Union Secretary-General, said that he was pleased that the Human Rights Council was considering the contribution that national parliaments could make to the international human rights agenda for the first time. The Inter-Parliamentary Union worked closely with the Office of the High Commissioner on human rights issues. It raised awareness about the Universal Periodic Review and other vital work; many parliaments were unfamiliar with the work of the Universal Periodic Review and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He was aware of the scepticism that some national parliaments had in their relationship with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Human Rights Council because each country was sovereign. United Nations Member States had however adopted a landmark resolution on interaction between the United Nations, national parliaments and the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Human rights were not technical matters; they often required political decisions. Thus parliaments could add greatly to the human rights agenda. Opinions differed about the level of participation of members of parliaments in human rights issues but the Inter-Parliamentary Union believed it could be useful for members of parliament to attend the interactive dialogues of the Human Rights Council. Concrete recommendations included that the Human Rights Council adopt an official statement or resolution that acknowledged the role that parliaments could play in its work, and a number of further suggestions about how parliaments and the Human Rights Council could work fruitfully together.

Statements by Panellists

EUSTACE LAKE, Member of the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda and Chairperson of the Commonwealth Caribbean Parliamentary Human Rights Group, said that the Commonwealth Caribbean Parliamentary Human Rights Group had been established as the main outcome of the Caribbean Regional Seminar for Members of Parliament on the role of parliamentarians in the promotion and protection of human rights. Mr. Lake highlighted the potential of the Belgrade Principles on the relationship between national human rights institutions and parliaments. Among other things, the Belgrade Principles included guidance on the financial independence, and the appointment and dismissal process of members of national human rights institutions. They were therefore of particular relevance to Caribbean countries, many of which had established institutions responsible for dealing with maladministration. The Commonwealth Secretariat supported initiatives aimed at the establishment and strengthening of national human rights institutions. Programmatic activities in that respect were often developed upon the request of Commonwealth Member States on the basis of accepted Universal Periodic Review recommendations. Mr. Lake stressed the importance of strengthening the cooperation between parliaments, national human rights institutions and civil society.

JUANA KWEITEL, Program Director of Connectas Human Rights, said that parliaments had a fundamental role to play in building the normative framework of human rights, including the approval of international instruments and their incorporation into the legal system. In Brazil, the National Congress could give human rights treaties Constitutional status. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was approved recently and enjoyed Constitutional status in Brazil. Connectas was a founding member of the Brazilian Committee on Human Rights and Foreign Policy, which was set up in 2006. The Committee met twice a year with the participation of non-governmental organizations, parliamentary human rights commissions and other areas of executive power, and shared information on the actions of the Brazilian Government and defined collective priorities. Parliaments could play an important role in ensuring that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism worked in the national sphere. During the preparations for Brazil’s second Universal Periodic Review, a public hearing was publicly transmitted, live via the internet, to debate the preliminary report that would be sent to the Council. Connectas’ experience showed that added value could be achieved from interaction between civil society and parliaments.

LASZLO BORBELY, Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Romanian Chamber of Representatives, said he appreciated the idea of establishing a dialogue between the Human Rights Council and national parliaments. He was proud of Romania’s role in previous United Nations actions in this direction. As a minority Hungarian in Romania, he appreciated the protection of minority rights in parliamentary structures. More could be done; many groups suffered discrimination in society and in parliaments. Parliamentary structures had to address this with legislation but also society had to change its mentality. Attitudes toward, for example, the use of minority languages were changing. Parliaments needed more partners such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union and they should use the United Nations system to further the human rights agenda at the national legislative level. In Romania there were 19 minority groups represented in parliament selected by positive discrimination, and this kind of proactive recognition of how parliaments could support rights at the domestic level was to be welcomed and strengthened.

LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and former member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, said that parliaments had a solemn duty to promote and protect human rights at all times and parliamentarians were responsible for ensuring that laws were properly implemented. Politicians should never lose sight of their duty to raise issues relating to human rights in public debate and to help forge a national consensus to uphold human rights. The participation of national human rights institutions in the work of parliaments had proved critical to the successful mainstreaming of international human rights law at the domestic level. Advice provided by national human rights institutions enhanced the quality of bills under consideration but also guaranteed the alignment of domestic law with international law. In the Philippines, for example, one of the mandates of the Philippines Commission on Human Rights was to monitor government compliance with its human rights treaties obligations. Regarding the Universal Periodic Review, Ms. Rosales said that that was an executive-driven process in the Philippines. As a body designed to accommodate geopolitical and sectoral interests, the Philippines Congress was typical of the deliberative bodies of the global South, yet the introduction of proportional or party-list representation had paved the way for sectoral causes to enter mainstream political discourse.

JORGE VILLARINO, Director of International Relations at the General Secretariat at the Congress of Deputies of Spain, said that the promotion of human rights was key in the Parliament’s daily work and this was clear in the Spanish Constitution. Parliament carried out the legislative function, essential to establishing a legal framework to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and it also had the role of pushing and driving policies, as well as a budgetary function. It was up to Parliament to approve and amend laws that regulated the exercise of fundamental freedoms and rights and it was up to Parliament to carve up the legal framework in which human rights could unfold. In Spain, the legislative dimension had a strengthened nature as the fundamental rights and freedoms had to be approved by organic law. There had been recent initiatives to create a specific human rights commission, although this had not yet been achieved. At the end of last December the constitutional commission received the assessment report on the Human Rights Plan. Spain was extremely decentralized and it was important to bear in mind that the different regional and federal levels had an important role to play. There was a need to bring parliamentary work more in line with the Universal Periodic Review. Mechanisms of legislation, oversight, information and political drive could be used in drafting the national report and in implementing recommendations.

Discussion

Spain said that a mechanism should be identified to ensure the independence and impartiality of the legislative branch. Spain was developing a mechanism which would help facilitate cooperation between parliaments and the Council. Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, said that parliaments had a key role to play in implementing follow-up to the Universal Periodic Review, so channels of cooperation with parliaments should be opened. Brazil said that the adoption of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, which gave prevalence to human rights and had played a key role in implementing measures promoting respect of human rights, was a landmark. Indonesia said that its parliament had been instrumental in bringing a human rights dimension into national governance during the country’s post-reform period, and that various national commissions had oversight functions on human rights issues. Venezuela said that the work of analyzing the impact of national laws was directly linked to the promotion and protection of human rights, and drew attention to the measures it had taken to protect the rights of the most vulnerable groups in the country. Thailand said that national parliaments should work closely with the Council and should also be consulted in the preparation of reports for the Universal Periodic Review. Maldives said that parliaments and the judiciary had, along with the executive, an obligation to uphold human rights. Therefore, their role in the Universal Periodic Review process should be enhanced. Chile said that parliamentarians were key actors in the implementation of Universal Periodic Review recommendations. One of the main challenges was to overcome the lack of awareness in certain national parliaments.

Gabon, on behalf of the African Group, and Algeria shared the view of the importance of involving parliaments in the three phases of the Universal Periodic Review, starting with parliaments providing their contribution to the elaboration of the national report to be presented to the Universal Periodic Review. Exploring the possible contributions of parliament to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the work of the Council underscored and reinforced national ownership of the Universal Periodic Review, said Egypt. Universal Periodic Review Info noted that in order to ensure that parliamentarians were involved in the implementation of recommendations they should be consulted in the decision on whether or not to accept recommendations made. What were good practices in and obstacles to achieving this?

EUSTACE LAKE, Member of the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda and Chairperson of the Commonwealth Caribbean Parliamentary Human Rights Group, said that parliamentarians tended to engage with stakeholders whenever they most needed them, for example around election time, which had to change. Barbados was a good example of a harmonious cooperation between the national human rights institution and the parliament. The process included national consultations and also the systematic consultation of parliamentarians and civil society representatives. Member States should work to improve their practices under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.

JUANA KWEITEL, Program Director of Connectas Human Rights, took up three points from the morning’s debate. The first was about best practice; here it was vital for there to be the speedy translation into local non-United Nations languages of the instruments and recommendations under discussion. Secondly, it was important for States not only to offer standing invitations to Special Rapporteurs but also to interact with them at the highest level. Thirdly, members of parliaments also needed to think about how to draft questions for other States under the terms of the Universal Periodic Review.

LASZLO BORBELY, Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Romanian Chamber of Representatives, responded to questions from Brazil on how Parliaments could be involved in the implementation of Universal Periodic Review recommendations and from Indonesia on how to convince parliamentarians, especially before elections, to split their habits and look to the noble question of human rights. Parliamentarians were very sensitive and looked to votes, and in his opinion the most efficient thing to do was to communicate with them and to recommend to them that it was important to look to civil society and open the door to real partnerships with different stakeholders.

LORETTA ROSALES, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and former member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, in response to a point raised by Thailand, said that the Council should encourage the active involvement of national parliaments in the preparation and submission of the Universal Periodic Review reports and in the implementation of follow-up recommendations. Fact-finding missions should be used at the national and regional level by human rights institutions. States should engage in dialogue with other States and should encourage the sharing of information and good practices through regional mechanisms. Also, parliamentary oversight functions of the implementation of human rights related legislation should be strengthened at the national level.

JORGE VILLARINO MARZO, Director of International Relations at the General Secretariat at the Congress of Deputies of Spain, said that this morning all the participants had agreed on the principle that the participation of parliaments in the Universal Periodic Review and that contact with the Human Rights Council was important. However, another point that emerged was that parliaments seem largely unaware of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, although the Inter-Parliamentary Union had a key role; it was the only global forum for all parliaments. “Parliaments” were historic institutions, as much as 800 years old, but their instruments could be improved and inter-parliamentary interaction in the future could only lead to improvements. Such cooperation was an important plank in foreign policy and the Universal Periodic Review system should be used to its maximum.

Poland said that Universal Periodic Review recommendations could have a significant impact at the national level if accepted and implemented. Morocco said that the role of parliament was not only of enshrining human rights in legislation but also ensuring that these were applied and implemented. Cuba said that parliamentarians best contributed positively to the work of the Human Rights Council at the national level and in Cuba they periodically debated various human rights issues. Iran said its parliament was among the most important national mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights and that it had actively and constructively been engaged in drafting the national report for Iran’s Universal Periodic Review. Bahrain said that the role of its parliamentarians was effective in the contribution of the preparation of its report before the Council. Australia said its parliamentarians had a role in scrutinizing the Government’s work. Ethiopia said the House of Peoples’ Representatives in Ethiopia undertook functions relevant to the work of the Council. It received and considered reports from the office of the Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Commission. Libya said that its National Congress had been working to establish a constitution that took human rights into account. In times of economic crisis parliaments had a role to play in looking into any impacts that austerity measures could have on the enjoyment of human rights, said Montenegro.

Taking into account the importance of the separation of power between branches of government, it may be helpful to explore ways in which parliament could engage with the executive power and civil society in the lead-up to the Universal Periodic Review, said the United States. The United Kingdom wished to hear from the panelists whether they shared the view that Universal Periodic Review coordination should be responsibility of a ministry such as the Ministry of Justice, as was done in the United Kingdom.

EUSTACE LAKE, Member of the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda and Chairperson of the Commonwealth Caribbean Parliamentary Human Rights Group, said that networks and associations of parliamentarians could have a significant role to play in the dissemination of the Council’s work, including the work carried out as part of the Universal Periodic Review. Parliaments should also strengthen their interaction with civil society and national human rights institutions. To that end, a practice-oriented seminar focusing on the implementation of accepted Universal Periodic Review recommendations was being organized by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Human Rights Group.

JUANA KWEITEL, Programme Director of Connectas Human Rights, said that human rights organizations in Brazil had taken several initiatives with the aim of promoting the activities of the Council and the work of the Special Rapporteurs. Investigations and fact-finding missions, both national and international, had proven to be very beneficial in Brazil. Another practice which would help to promote the work of the Council at the national level was televising or webcasting the Council’s Universal Periodic Review meetings. Ms. Kweitel stressed that parliaments had a responsibility to ensure greater participation and dissemination of information at the national level.

LASZLO BORBELY, Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Romanian Chamber of Representatives, answered a point raised by the United States and said that there were two ways of thinking about it. The first was institutionally; in the European Union there were rights bodies that were able to take forward the agenda. Secondly, it could be addressed through robust discussion in each national institution and at the level of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The international community could not solve these questions in one year or ten; in Romania it took 23 years to solve some of the problems on the human rights agenda. They had to make decisions at the international and national levels in a coordinated manner.

LORETTA ROSALES, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and former member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, proposed in response to Thailand that the capacity of parliaments to strengthen human rights must be strengthened through fact-finding and other information gathering actions, and regional and national engagement. Civil society and national human rights institutions had to engage with national parliaments as well as the Human Rights Council. Meanwhile, implementation of the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review had to be undertaken seriously at all levels and Ms. Rosales backed the comments of the United Kingdom made earlier in the discussion on how this could be done.

JORGE VILLARINO MARZO, Director of International Relations at the General Secretariat of the Congress of Deputies of Spain, said that on training of members of parliament that the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was important but institutions available in different countries at the regional or local levels should also be used, such as ombudsman offices. Another issue raised was how to coordinate collaboration mechanisms between parliament, government and civil society. It was important to have this collaboration and how it was coordinated was dependent on the constitutional system of the State. On civil society participation, one of the main ways that had come about was parliaments opening up to civil society through, for example, public hearings. It was essential to take into account the impact of social media on Parliaments, and they could improve civil society participation.

ANDERS B. JOHNSON, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in concluding remarks said that parliamentarians in every single country were very special persons. They were not elected because they were working on international issues or pursuing an international agenda. They got a mandate from their constituencies to represent them as they were working with them on local issues. In working with them, one should not be surprised if they were not aware of the Human Rights Council or the Universal Periodic Review. The basic thing to be done was to ensure that they were aware of the importance of recommendations formulated and their translation of these into their work. The more aware they were of debates in international fora, the more they were aware of the challenges they needed to address and the quality of parliamentary debate would subsequently increase. One country that could be looked at, in the area of reporting exercises for international treaty bodies, would be South Africa. The South African Parliament had taken a position that when it came to reporting to international treaty bodies in the area of human rights, there could not be a national report submission if it had not been up for review in parliament beforehand. It had been inviting civil society to contribute to the debate and voice any concerns. There had been a question on whether the Human Rights Council or the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights wished should try to organize discussions with Parliamentarians. If the Human Rights Council wanted to organize debates with parliaments in a specific region, a regional parliamentary institution could be found everywhere that could be reached out to. At the global level, the Inter-Parliamentary Union was relevant.

LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, in concluding remarks, thanked the High Commissioner, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and all the panellists and country representatives for their contributions to the panel discussion, and said that today’s discussion would help the Council better to understand the work of parliaments in the area of human rights.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC13/058E