HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS 14 TEXTS AND CLOSES TWENTY-FIFTH REGULAR SESSION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted 12 resolutions and two Presidential Statements, appointed a member of Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, postponed the naming of 19 special procedure mandate holders, adopted the report of the session ad referendum, and then closed its twenty-fifth regular session.

The Council extended the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance for a period of three years, and of the Independent Expert on Mali for a period of one year. The Council also extended technical assistance to Libya in building and strengthening national structures that had a direct impact on the maintenance of the rule of law, and invited the international community to extend technical assistance to Guinea in the field of human rights, the fight against impunity and security sector reform. Two Presidential Statements on Haiti and on South Sudan were adopted.

Concerning the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, the Council adopted by a vote of 46 in favour and 1 against, four resolutions: on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan; on the human rights situation in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; and on follow-up to the report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The Council also adopted, under the same agenda item, the resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, by a vote of 33 in favour, 1 against and 13 abstentions.

The Council further requested the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent to optimally use its thirteenth session to produce a draft framework document in the form of a programme of activities for the International Decade for People of African Descent, and in another text condemned any advocacy of religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involved the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means.

The Presidential Statement on Haiti welcomed the El Rancho agreement and the new electoral law, and encouraged Haiti to strengthen the rule of law and combat impunity, violence, and discrimination against women and vulnerable groups. The Presidential Statement on South Sudan expressed deep concern at the human rights situation in the country and welcomed the establishment by the African Union of a commission of inquiry for South Sudan as an important step towards ensuring accountability and preventing the recurrence of such abuses.

In a resolution on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 9 against and 7 abstentions, the Council called upon States to avoid using force during peaceful protests and to ensure that their domestic legislation and procedures were consistent with the international obligations and commitments in relation to the use of force, and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare guidelines for facilitating and protecting peaceful protests based on good practices.

Baudelaire Ndong Ella, President of the Human Rights Council, said the Council elected by acclamation Karla Hananía de Varela from the Latin America and Caribbean region to fill the vacant seat on the Advisory Committee.

The appointment of 19 mandate-holders, including Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts, and members of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Working Group on Enforced of Involuntary Disappearances, the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice and the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, was postponed until the next Universal Periodic Review session which will take place in April 2014.

The Council then adopted ad referendum the report of its twenty-fifth session presented by Katerina Sequensova, Human Rights Council Vice-President and Rapporteur.

In his closing remarks, Mr. Ndong Ella, President of the Human Rights Council reminded the delegations of the need to conduct dialogue in the spirit of cooperation and participation and stressed the need to end acts of reprisals against and intimidation of those who engaged with the United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms.

Introducing texts were Pakistan, Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), Morocco, and Switzerland.

Venezuela, United States, Italy (on behalf of the European Union), France (on behalf of Group of Friends of Haiti), Russia, United Kingdom, Chile, South Africa, Costa Rica (on behalf of a groups of States), Czech Republic, Germany, France, Benin, Maldives, China, Viet Nam, India, Sierra Leone, Algeria, and Mexico spoke in general comments or in explanation of the vote before or after the vote.

Speaking as concerned countries were Palestine, Syria, Guinea, Mali, Libya, and Haiti. Israel was not present in the room to take the floor as a concerned country.

The following observer States spoke on the resolutions adopted: Libya and Australia.

Speaking regarding the appointment of the new mandate-holders was Peru.

Saudi Arabia (on behalf of a group of States), Lithuania, Egypt (on behalf of a group of States), Morocco, and the non-governmental organizations International Service for Human rights and International Organization for Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination also took the floor in general concluding remarks.

The twenty-sixth session of the Human Rights Council will be held from 10 to 27 June 2014.

Action on Resolutions under Agenda Item on the Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories

Action on Resolution on the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.36) on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, adopted by a vote of 46 in favour, 1 against and no abstentions, the Council reaffirms the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to live in freedom, justice and dignity, and to establish their sovereign, independent, democratic and viable contiguous State; also reaffirms its support for the solution of two States, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security; stresses the need for respect for and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; urges all Member States and relevant bodies of the United Nations system to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.


The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (46): Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (0):


Pakistan, introducing draft resolution L.36 on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, said that the realization of the right to self-determination was an essential condition to guarantee the observance and promotion and protection of individual human rights. The resolution focused on the unquestionable right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, granted to them by the United Nations Charter, international law, relevant human rights instruments and United Nations resolutions. It also reaffirmed its support for the solution of two States, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security. The draft text stressed the need for the respect for and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all the Occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and urged the international community to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination. It contained facts, recognized, acknowledged and cherished by the international community. Due to the universal character of this right and its continued and wide applicability to numerous situations in the world, in particular to the Palestinian people, it was hoped that the resolution would be adopted by consensus.

Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, expressed its complete support for this resolution. The Palestinians were deprived of their right to fully enjoy their lands by Israel. This Council could not remain indifferent to the situation of the Palestinians, and had to address the question of ethnic cleansing in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Venezuela called on Israel to implement United Nations resolutions on this matter.

Palestine, speaking as a concerned country, expressed its appreciation to those who supported this resolution and who worked to reach consensus on this matter. Israel wanted to continue its occupation, but Palestine would continue to resist this situation. There were daily acts of provocation that would lead to further bloodshed in the region. Palestine’s ambition was to reach a two-State solution, and this was illustrated in the resolution. Israeli authorities did not want any of this, and would like to continue their settlement policies. It seemed that the Israel leadership was trying to create another Montevideo agreement. Israel had flooded all international human rights and humanitarian instruments on a daily basis since its creation. Israeli settlers committed daily abuses against religious sites. Palestine hoped that the recommendations in the Goldstone report would be implemented. Palestine rejected allegations of anti-Semitism by Israel.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the time, effort and resources that the United States had devoted to try and forge peace in the Middle East underscored its deep concern both for Palestinians and Israelis. The status quo was not sustainable. It was deeply troubled to be presented with one-sided resolutions, which pre-supposed the outcome of final status issues which could only be resolved through direct negotiation between the parties. The United States was troubled by the Council’s stand-alone agenda against Israel. All parties to the conflict had direct responsibility for ending the conflict. The United States called for a vote on the resolution and each resolution under agenda item 7.

Action on Resolution on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.37/Rev.1) on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a vote of 46 in favour, 1 against and no abstentions, the Council demands that Israel, the occupying Power, immediately and completely cease all of its settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls in this regard for the full implementation of all relevant resolutions of the Security Council; condemns the continuing settlement and related activities by Israel; also condemns the recent Israeli announcements of the construction of new housing units for Israeli settlers in the West Bank and around occupied East Jerusalem and calls upon the Government of Israel to immediately reverse its decisions; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report detailing the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the independent fact-finding mission on the implications of Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian People throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session; requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of the present resolution at its twenty-eighth session.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (46): Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (0):


Pakistan, presenting draft resolution L.37/Rev.1, on Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan, said that this resolution sought to address the human rights and humanitarian situations in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and reaffirmed that Israeli settlements were illegal and constituted a threat to peace and stability. Pakistan hoped that the Council would adopt this resolution by consensus.

Syria, speaking as a concerned country, said that it would make a longer statement before the adoption of draft resolution L.40.

Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, thanked the Mission of Palestine for its constructive negotiations. However, it clarified that the European Union had not expressed itself on the use of certain legal terms in this and other resolutions including ‘forced displacement’, ‘forcible transfer’ and ‘peremptory norms’. It was also of the view that nothing in these resolutions could be understood as going beyond the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as endorsed by consensus in the Council. With this understanding, it supported the resolution.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that for the reasons stated in its previous statement, it called for a vote.

Action on Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.38/Rev.1) on the human rights situation in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, adopted by a vote of 46 in favour, 1 against and no abstentions, the Council demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease all practices and actions that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people and cease its imposition of prolonged closures and economic and movement restrictions, including those amounting to a blockade on the Gaza Strip, and, in this regard, calls upon Israel to implement fully the Agreement on Movement and Access and the Agreed Principles for the Rafah Crossing; deplores the illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem, including home demolitions, evictions of Palestinian residents, excavations in and around religious and historic sites, and all other unilateral measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the city and of the Territory as a whole; expresses serious concern at the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law which suspends the possibility, with certain rare exceptions, of family reunification between an Israeli citizen and a person residing in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, thus adversely affecting the lives of many families; urges Member States to continue to provide emergency assistance to the Palestinian people to alleviate the financial crisis and the dire socioeconomic and humanitarian situation, particularly in the Gaza Strip; and requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session.


The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (46): Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (0):


Pakistan, introducing draft resolution L.38/Rev.1 on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, said that the resolution expressed concerns at the continuing violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, including the excessive use of force by Israel. The resolution stressed the need to end immediately the closure of the Gaza Strip and to respect the right of Palestinians to freedom of movement. It called upon Israel to cease all human rights violations against the Palestinians and all measures and actions taken in breach of international humanitarian law, including killing of civilians, arbitrary detention and destruction and confiscation of civilian property.

Action on Resolution on Follow-up to the Report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.39) on follow-up to the report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, adopted by a vote of 46 in favour, 1 against and no abstentions, the Council renews its recommendation that the General Assembly remain apprised of the matter until it is satisfied that appropriate action with regard to implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict is taken at the domestic or international level in order to ensure justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators, and to remain also ready to consider whether additional action within its powers is required in the interests of justice; and decides to remain seized of the matter.


The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (46): Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (0):


Pakistan, introducing draft resolution L.39 on follow-up to the report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict, said the international community strongly condemned the aggression launched by Israel in 2009 in the occupied Gaza Strip. Subsequently, the Human Rights Council held two special sessions on the subject and fully endorsed the report and recommendations contained in the report of the United Nations International Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict. The report asked for a series of actions which needed serious and consistent follow-up by the United Nations system. This resolution sought to address this important purpose. The draft resolution recommended that the General Assembly remained apprised of the matter until it was satisfied that appropriate action with regard to implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the Fact-Finding Mission was taken at the domestic or international level in order to ensure justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators. It was hoped that Member States would join the consensus on the resolution.

Action on Resolution on Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.40) on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, 1 against and 13 abstentions, the Council calls upon Israel to desist from its continuous building of settlements, and from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan; calls upon Israel to allow the Syrian population of occupied Syrian Golan to visit their families and relatives in the Syrian motherland through the Quneitra checkpoint; also calls upon Israel to release immediately the Syrian detainees in Israeli prisons, some of whom have been detained for more than 27 years; 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; determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, are null and void and have no legal effect; and 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 Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (33): Algeria, Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (13): Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and United Kingdom.


Pakistan, introducing draft resolution L.40 on the human rights situation in the Occupied Syrian Golan, said that Israel had committed grave human rights violations in the Syrian Golan since the beginning of the occupation. Pakistan strongly believed that a strong message had to be sent by the Human Rights Council with regards to the situation in the Occupied Syrian Golan. Pakistan hoped that this resolution could be accepted by consensus.

Syria, speaking as a concerned country, regretted that Israel had continued the settlement and Judaization process in the Occupied Golan in violation of United Nations resolutions. Israel had perpetrated violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including the right to education, and was preventing family members from visiting each other. The only way of achieving peace was for Israel to implement the relevant resolutions and withdraw from the occupied territories. The fact that the situation was permanently on the Council’s agenda was absolutely necessary and appropriate.

Action on Resolutions under Agenda Item on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance, Follow-up to and Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

Action on Resolution on the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.22) on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance for a further period of three years; requests all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the discharge of his/her mandate, including by responding promptly to the Special Rapporteur’s communications, including urgent appeals; and requests the Special Rapporteur to submit an annual report to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly on all activities relating to his/her mandate with a view to maximizing the benefits of the reporting process.

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group in introduction of the draft resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said it asked the Council to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further period of three years. The draft also requested the Special Rapporteur to submit an annual report to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly on all activities relating to his mandate with a view to maximizing benefits of the reporting process.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States supported all efforts to combat racism wherever it occurred. The priority was that all States lived up to their obligations under the Convention and implemented practical measures in line with this Convention. The United States was concerned that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur did little to advance practical policies in fighting racism.

Action on Resolution on the International Decade for People of African Descent

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.23) on the International Decade for People of African Descent, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council requests the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent to optimally use its thirteenth session to produce a draft framework document in the form of a programme of activities for the International Decade for People of African Descent; and requests the Working Group to present its final report in this regard to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-sixth session for its adoption and transmission to the General Assembly.

Ethiopia, introducing the draft resolution on the International Decade for the People of African Descent, said that it emphasized the need to urgently heed the instruction of the General Assembly. Its objective was to request the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action to dedicate its programme of work to the purposes of distilling the programme of activities from the existing draft Programme of Action for People of African Descent. Ethiopia presented oral amendments to the draft resolution, and asked the Council to adopt it by consensus.

Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, supported this resolution and underlined the need to ensure that those who suffered racism received reparation. Venezuela recalled the message by Nelson Mandela and said that the international community had to provide reparation to the people of African descent who suffered the transatlantic slave trade.

Italy, speaking in a general comment on the behalf of the European Union, welcomed the consensus achieved on the General Assembly resolution from December on the proclamation of the Decade. The mandate given to the Working Group to develop a draft programme for the Decade was of crucial importance. The European Union stressed that only through true ownership and the engagement of States could the Decade be successfully planned and implemented.

Action on Resolution on Combatting Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.41) on 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 condemns deeply any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means; calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote full respect for and protection of places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction; requests the High Commissioner to prepare and submit to the Human Rights Council, at its twenty-eighth session, a comprehensive follow-up report with elaborated conclusions based upon information provided by States on the efforts and measures taken by them for the implementation of the action plan outlined in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, as well as their views on potential follow-up measures for further improvement of the implementation of that plan; and 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.

Pakistan, introducing draft resolution L.41 on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief, said this resolution was built on a historic consensus reached three years ago by the Council. This was an important matter not only for Muslims but for all faiths. Pakistan welcomed the openness of the negotiations, and believed that the resolution before the Council could reach a consensus again. Pakistan strongly urged the international community to implement the action plan contained in the resolution to effectively combat religious intolerance.

Italy, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union remained committed to an active dialogue to overcome existing divergences and misinterpretations on those important issues. There should be a much stronger human rights focus to the resolution and the wider agenda. Any undue restrictions on the freedom of expression might undermine efforts to combat intolerance. It was important to stress that no one might invoke cultural diversity or religion traditions to infringe upon human rights guaranteed under international law, nor limit their scope. Attention should never be diverted from the responsibility of national and local authorities and should safeguard individual rights. The resolution under discussion should stay focused on ongoing activities and operational processes directly relevant to combating religious intolerance.

Action on Resolutions under Agenda Item on Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building

Action on Resolution on Strengthening Technical Cooperation and Consultative Services in Guinea

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.6) on strengthening of technical cooperation and consultative services in Guinea, adopted without a vote, the Council calls on the Guinean authorities to guarantee freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association; firmly reiterates its commitment to accession to power by democratic means and condemns all incitement to ethnic and/or racial hatred; firmly reiterates its appeal to the international community to provide the Government of Guinea with appropriate assistance to promote respect for human rights; invites the High Commissioner to report to the Council at its twenty-fifth session on the situation of human rights and the work of the Office of the High Commissioner in Guinea.

Ethiopia, introducing draft resolution L.6 on strengthening technical cooperation and consultative services in Guinea, said that this resolution urged all political actors to continue to engage actively in political dialogue and in the organization of free and transparent elections. It also called on these actors to prevent and prohibit acts of violence and destabilization which undermined the democratic process in the country. The resolution welcomed efforts to reform the security sector with respect to human rights, and encouraged efforts to reform the justice system and combat impunity.

Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, thanked Guinea and the African Group for the high quality text and welcomed the constructive spirit in which the negotiations took place. Guinea had undergone a number of positive developments reflected in the text. Challenges remained, as also reflected in the resolution. The resolution above all called upon the authorities to enhance efforts to counter impunity and in particular to bring to justice human rights violators. The European Union considered that it was important to maintain Guinea on the Council’s agenda and it was appropriate that the High Commissioner should report to the twenty-eighth session of the Council.

Guinea, speaking as the concerned country, said that it naturally took note of the recommendations and advice provided by this session of the Council and thanked all those countries that had been so consistent throughout the international community in backing Guinea along its difficult path of democratization. It further expressed that it was determined to continue to build a society which respected everyone’s rights and the Council was thanked for its support in this regard.

Action on Resolution on Assistance to Mali in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.33) on assistance to Mali in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Mali with a view to assist the Government of Mali’s efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights. The resolution requests the Independent Expert to work closely with all United Nations bodies, the African Union, the Economic Community of West Africa, as well as any other international organizations and Malian civil society, and to report to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session. The resolution encourages all relevant international actors, including United Nations Member States, United Nations agencies, international financial institutions and other international organization in Mali, to provide technical assistance and support for capacity building in order to promote respect for human rights and reform the justice sector.

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group in introduction of the draft resolution on assistance to the Republic of Mali in the field of human rights, said the resolution reflected the commitment of the Government of Mali to promote and protect human rights and its efforts to restore peace and stability and the significant improvement in the security situation in Mali. The mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Mali would be extended for another year.

Italy, speaking on the behalf of the European Union in a general comment, fully supported the resolution, and thanked the African Group for the text. The European Union believed that the situation in Mali had much improved over the previous year, and some positive developments had taken place, including presidential and parliamentary elections in satisfactory conditions. However, human rights violations continued to be committed in Mali, and the European Union was calling on the authorities of Mali to decisively combat impunity.

Mali, speaking as the concerned country, said that the draft text was of fundamental importance to the country. Its aim was to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert for human rights in Mali. As the Minister of Justice had stated, Mali fully subscribed to the re-appointment of the Independent Expert for a further year. As in the past, Mali wished to count on the support of the Members of the Council to ensure adoption by consensus of the draft text. Mali reiterated its gratitude to the entire international community for its constant support.

Action on Resolution on Technical Assistance for Libya in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.35) on technical assistance for Libya in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council condemns the assassination of government officials and civil society leaders, including judges and other members of the judiciary in Derna and Benghazi, and urges the Government of Libya to continue its investigations in order to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice; expresses concern at the continued mistreatment of detainees in detention centres out of judicial police control; urges the Government of Libya to intensify efforts to prevent acts of torture and to bring to justice those responsible; urges the Government of Libya to take further steps to protect freedom of expression; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to further provide technical assistance to support the Government of Libya in building and strengthening national structures that have a direct impact on the overall observance of human rights and the maintenance of the rule of law in Libya; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a written report for submission to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session.

Morocco, introducing draft resolution L.36 on technical assistance for Libya in the field of human rights, said the draft resolution was submitted at a critical moment for Libya, which had made notable progress on the promotion and protection of human rights. After intensive bilateral consultations, and in order to accommodate the maximum number of delegations, operational paragraph 10 had been revised to read: “Takes note of the continued cooperation of the Government of Libya with the International Criminal Court regarding the situation in Libya.”

Libya, speaking as the concerned country, appreciated Morocco’s support and the efforts made leading to the resolution under discussion. Consensus on the resolution would constitute a clear message that the Human Rights Council was strongly supporting Libya in its transitional period. While Libya had criminalized torture and enforced disappearances and made significant progress in the area of human rights, the country ought to further pursue efforts to uphold the rule of law and respect for human rights. The Army had been reformed, but it needed support to face challenges of transnational crime, terrorism and illegal immigration.

Presidential Statement on the Human Rights Situation in Haiti

In a Presidential Statement (A/HRC/25/L.42) on the human rights situation in Haiti, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Independent Expert to present a report to the Council at its twenty-eighth session; welcomes the report of the Independent Expert and takes note of progress achieved in the field of human rights; welcomes the El Rancho agreement and the new electoral law; encourages Haiti to continue its efforts to strengthen the rule of law and combat impunity; also encourages Haiti to strengthen its national human rights institutions and its judicial institutions to bring them in line with international human rights standards; further encourages Haiti to take all necessary measures to combat violence and discrimination against women and vulnerable groups; underlines the particular risks faced by displaced persons and separated families, including non-accompanied children; and calls upon international donors and other international institutions to continue supporting Haiti.

France, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Group of Friends of Haiti, welcomed the President’s statement on the human rights situation in Haiti, with one aim to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert. The Group of Friends of Haiti paid tribute to the Independent Expert for the quality of his work and all the efforts made in working with Haiti over the last year, which had led to the submission of concrete recommendations. The Group of Friends of Haiti reiterated their solidarity with Haiti to support it in its efforts to consolidate democracy and the rule of law in the country.

Haiti, speaking as the concerned country, expressed heartfelt thanks to France that had acted as the Coordinator of the Group of Friends of Haiti. Haiti extended greetings and thanks to the Independent Expert for the quality of his work and supported the renewal of his mandate. Haiti requested the support of the international community in the implementation of recommendations drafted by the Independent Expert.

Explanations of the Vote after the Vote after Concluding Taking Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building

Russia, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Libya was facing multiple challenges on a daily basis, including establishing the control of the Government on the entire territory. The resolution did not fully reflect the human rights situation, and of particular concern was the condition of prisoners in Libya, including two unlawfully convicted Russian citizens.

United Kingdom, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, paid tribute to Morocco for its efforts during the negotiations. While it was important to recognize the progress Libya had made since the fall of Gadhafi, after four decades of misrule, significant political, security and institutional challenges remained. The United Kingdom encouraged full cooperation of Libya with the International Criminal Court.

Action on Resolution under the Agenda Item on Organizational and Procedural Matters

Action on Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in South Sudan

In a Presidential Statement (A/HRC/25/L.34) on the human rights situation in South Sudan, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses deep concern at the situation of human rights resulting from the crisis and violence that broke out in mid-December 2013 in South Sudan; calls upon the parties to the conflict to put an end to all violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law and to implement the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement and its Implementation Modalities; expresses support for the democratically elected Government of South Sudan; encourages the Government to investigate the root causes of the crisis and the violence that broke out in mid-December 2013, and reiterates that all perpetrators of atrocities must be held accountable; urges the parties to the conflict to allow immediate and full access to humanitarian assistance to all populations in need of assistance; welcomes the establishment by the African Union of a commission of inquiry for South Sudan as an important step towards ensuring accountability and preventing the recurrence of such abuses; and calls upon the Government of South Sudan to cooperate fully with the United Nations Mission in South Sudan.

Ethiopia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group supported the Presidential Statement. The African Group was deeply concerned by the crisis that broke out in South Sudan in mid-December in 2013. The African Group praised the efforts and results achieved by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development to bring peace and stability in South Sudan. It called on the Human Rights Council and members of the international community to enhance their support for South Sudan.

Italy, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was deeply concerned about the deplorable human rights and humanitarian situation currently unfolding in South Sudan. A strong response by the Council was necessary. However the European Union respected the African Group’s leadership on this issue. The European Union condemned the widespread human rights violations committed by all parties in South Sudan since the outbreak of the conflict, in particular extrajudicial and mass killings and the deliberate targeting of civilians, among others. It would be important to provide unhindered access to monitors and Commission of Inquiry members to allow them to do their work.

Chile said it joined the consensus but it did not support the first part of the Presidential Statement and requested that its statement be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

Action on Resolution under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

Action on Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Context of Peaceful Protests

In a resolution (A/HRC/25/L.20) on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 9 against and 7 abstentions as orally revised, the Council calls upon States to promote a safe and enabling environment for individuals and groups to exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, of expression and of association; urges States to facilitate peaceful protests by providing protestors with access to public space and protecting them, without discrimination against any forms of threats and harassment; to pay particular attention to the safety and protection of women human rights defenders, as well as journalists and media workers covering peaceful protests; to avoid using force during peaceful protests; calls upon States, as a matter or priority, to ensure that their domestic legislation and procedures are consistent with the international obligations and commitments in relation to the use of force; investigate any significant injury committed during protests; ensure adequate training of officials exercising law enforcement duties, and, where applicable, promote adequate training for private personnel acting on behalf of a State; requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare guidelines for facilitating and protecting peaceful protests based on good practices.


The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (31): Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Gabon, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sierra Leone, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

Against (9): China, Cuba, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Russian Federation, South Africa, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

Abstentions (7): Algeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Kuwait, Namibia, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.


The Council rejected amendment L.48 by a vote of 16 in favour, 22 against and 9 abstentions.

The Council rejected amendment L.49 by a vote of 17 in favour, 22 against and 8 abstentions.

The Council rejected amendment L.50 by a vote of 19 in favour, 23 against and 5 abstentions.

The Council rejected amendment L.52 by a vote of 20 in favour, 23 against and 4 abstentions.

Switzerland, introducing draft resolution L.20 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful demonstrations, said that it was an initiative of immediate relevance. It was important that everything be done to ensure that peaceful demonstrations remained peaceful and that people truly could give voice to their message. The State had the primary responsibility in the promotion and protection of human rights, including in the context of peaceful protests. The resolution contributed to a better understanding of the obligations of the State within this context. Its main aim was to spell out some of the provisions that already featured in resolution 22/10, and to provide for follow-up on the basis of discussion, reports and seminars. The Special Rapporteurs on peaceful assembly and association and on extrajudicial and summary executions were provided with a mandate to draft a compilation of practical recommendations, to be presented to the Council in two years’ time.

South Africa, in a general statement on behalf of sponsors of amendments to draft resolution L.20, said that they were committed to the right to peaceful protest, but noted that leaders of protests had obligations as well. The resolutions of this Council should strengthen international human rights law by filling gaps. Sponsors of this resolution were unfortunately reluctant to recognize that protest organizers had a responsibility to protect rights as well, and to recognize the States’ responsibility to protect national security. The sponsors requested that amendments L.48, L.49, L.50 and L.52 were discussed one by one.

Costa Rica, in a general comment, supported the text presented by Switzerland and called on all delegations to reject the amendments proposed by South Africa. Regarding amendment L.48 that proposed to add a reference to the General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, Costa Rica was of the view that such reference was not directly human rights-related and would weaken the resolution. Regarding amendment L.49, Costa Rica believed that this new language was already addressed in the text. The language in amendment L.50 regarding possible threats of protests to the stability of the State was opened to subjective interpretation and undermined human rights and should be rejected, Costa Rica said. Amendment L.52 proposing additional language on the responsibilities of protestors was worded so as to deflect from the responsibility of States to protect individuals from human rights violations. This was further unnecessary given that the responsibilities of individuals were recalled elsewhere in the resolution, in a spirit of compromise. Costa Rica urged the members of the Council to reject all these amendments.

Czech Republic, in a general comment, said that peaceful protests were an important form of exercising the rights to peaceful assembly, of expression and of association. This form of expression needed to be protected. It played a major role in history as a means of participatory democracy. The draft was a result of a transparent and thorough consultation involving both States and civil society stakeholders.

Germany, in a general comment, said that it supported the text as orally revised. It closed a protection gap and expressed concern at the indiscriminate use of lethal force against crowds as unfortunately had been witnessed in many countries. Such an initiative was one that should enjoy the full support of the Human Rights Council.

United States, in a general comment, said that it strongly supported the resolution and would vote yes to the resolution, and would vote against the amendments. The ability to protest peacefully was an essential enabler of other human rights and freedoms. The amendments would restrict the ability for such expression and enjoyment of those rights. National security was often interpreted too broadly.

France, in a general comment, said it could not accept the amendments which sought to reduce the scope of the text and limit the right to peaceful protest. Peaceful demonstration did not constitute a threat to national security. France would vote for the text as it stood and would vote against the amendments.

Benin, speaking in a general comment, considered that these amendments diminished the text, and believed that the text had to be adopted as it stood.

Maldives, speaking in a general comment, underlined that protests played a critical role in upholding human rights and the rule of law, particularly in authoritarian States. The amendments would go against the spirit of the resolution, therefore the Maldives called on all Members of the Council to reject them and to adopt the resolution as it was.

South Africa, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it supported the request for a vote. This draft resolution was neither balanced nor objective. The voting on the amendments showed this clearly. South Africa would vote against the draft resolution. It was regrettable that the amendments did not find their way into the text. They would have created a strong basis for the evolution of normative standards in international human rights law on peaceful protests. South Africa called for a vote.

China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it supported the request for a vote. This draft resolution was neither balanced nor objective and the voting on the amendments showed this clearly. China would vote against the draft resolution.

Russia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it supported the proposal of South Africa on a vote. Since the beginning of the initiative, Russia had called upon co-sponsors to work within the framework of international human rights law and to proceed on that basis. In the draft resolution, so-called peaceful protests were being talked about. There was no condemnation of acts of violence or any call upon all parties to be peaceful in their actions during demonstrations in the text.

Viet Nam, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, regretted that the resolution was not balanced and did not promote dialogue between parties. Neither did it promote a gradual approach to deal with protests. Viet Nam therefore supported the call for a vote by South Africa.

Venezuela, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, endorsed the request for a vote made by South Africa. Peaceful protest was recognized in the constitution of Venezuela. It was an obligation of the State to preserve and defend collective peace and social harmony. Violent protests or protests financed by foreign governments constituted an offense against the law. Venezuela would vote against the draft resolution.

Cuba, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that persons who exercised peaceful assembly were subjected to restrictions under international law, including the obligation to respect the right to life and national security. Domestic law was the legal framework in which protests had to be exercised. Cuba could not support an initiative which could be used to justify interference by the Western world into the affairs of a democratically elected government.

India, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, supported South Africa’s call for a vote. As a democratic country with respect for the rule of law, its Constitution guaranteed as fundamental rights the freedom of speech and assembly. Reasonable restrictions could be imposed on their enjoyments, however. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also referred to admissibility of restrictions as long as they were not unreasonable. The text gave a fragmented picture of the context in which protests occurred.

Sierra Leone, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, regretted that the amendment L.52 was not adopted as it believed that organizers of peaceful protests should be assigned responsibilities. Nonetheless it would vote in favour of the resolution, with the understanding that the matter would be addressed in future considerations of peaceful protests in the Council.

Explanations of the Vote after the Vote after the Council Concluded Taking Action on Resolutions on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

China, in an explanation of the vote after the vote regarding the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, said that the resolution was highly unbalanced and did not contain constructive proposals by like-minded countries. There were still major differences within the Council on this issue. China asked the secretariat to take on record China’s disapproval of this text.

Algeria, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that it abstained on the resolution on peaceful protests L.20 because the text was unbalanced and did not refer to the responsibilities of the organisers of protests. The amendments proposed by South Africa would have strengthened the international framework on the right to peaceful assembly.

Mexico, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that it voted in favour of the resolution on the negative effect of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origins because of its negative effects on human rights. Mexico believed that the issue deserved the attention of the Council.

United States, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that it was pleased to join consensus on the resolution on access to justice for children, and to co-sponsor the resolution on ending violence against children. Its domestic efforts to strengthen existing protections for children and ensure that the rights of the child were realized remained a priority of the United States.

Cuba, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Cuba was surprised that the resolution on the use of drones was put to a vote. Where should the situation of hundreds of extrajudicial executions by drones, including of innocent women and children, be considered then? It was hoped that the key country responsible for this violation did away with the practice.

India, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that it fully supported the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, but regretted that the scope of its mandate had been expanded in the resolution. The resolution should have taken into account national legislation as the framework in which human rights defenders operated. Human rights defenders had the duty to abide by national laws, and India regretted that the resolution failed to recognise that.

Viet Nam, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, was concerned that the resolution on human rights defenders extended the scope of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Viet Nam believed that the activities of human rights defenders had to be conducted within the framework of national laws in compliance with the United Nations Charter.

Japan, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that it attached great importance to the right to peaceful protest, but requested the Secretariat to minimise the budget implications of the resolution.

Action on Election of Candidates for Special Procedures Mandate Holders

BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA, President of the Human Rights Council, introduced the list of candidates for special procedures mandate holders, which was circulated to delegations on 27 March 2014.

Peru asked the President to apply rule 74 to postpone the debate on the issue. This request was made on the basis of form and substance. Peru, and perhaps other delegations, were not in a condition to adopt the proposal circulated yesterday. On form, Peru could not manage to identify in the document circulated the special procedures where the order of priority had not been followed. It was important to recall that when this happened, the President had to justify the decision and the proposal made. Peru did not feel that this proposal was clear. On substance, the issues of equitable geographical representation and on gender balance were raised.

BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA, President of the Human Rights Council, said that in line with provisions of resolution 5/1 and 16/21, the President of the Council would determine the appropriate candidate for each vacancy and present this list at least two weeks before the Council would consider this list. On geographical distribution, the President had also been very concerned about this need. If there was a delay of another month, it could be helpful, but the question would have to be submitted to the Council. The issue was brought to the Council that decided that taking action on the list would be postponed until the Universal Periodic Review in April.

General Comments at the End of Taking Action on Texts

Libya, speaking in a general comment on adopted texts, said that the reference by the Russian Federation to Russian prisoners in Libya was a judicial issue, and was being dealt with in full independence by the judiciary.

Australia, speaking in a general comment on adopted texts, underlined the importance of the transparency of the work of the Council, and was therefore concerned of the decision by some States to bypass the negotiation process and present hostile amendments at the last moment.

Report of the Session

BAUDELAIRE NGONG ELLA, President of the Council, proposed the adoption of the report of the session. The draft report was placed on the extranet yesterday afternoon.

KATERINA SEQUENSOVA, Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Council, introducing the draft report, said that it contained a procedural description of work up until Thursday morning, 27 March, at 11 a.m. Any comments or corrections could be sent through the Secretariat of the Council. The final draft report would be posted on the extranet. The format was based on the agenda of the Council. The text of resolutions and decisions adopted during the session would be available in due course on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and subsequently included in part one of the final report. The Council had seen a discussion on a wide range of discussions. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, the President, all the delegations, and all staff, were thanked for their hard work.

BAUDELAIRE NGONG ELLA, President of the Council, said the report was adopted ad referendum.

General Concluding Comments

Saudi Arabia, in general concluding remarks, supported the political process in Egypt following the revolution there. Egypt’s stability and security was crucial for the region. Saudi Arabia welcomed Egypt’s commitment to protect human rights and the rule of law, including freedom of religion, women’s rights and the right to non-discrimination. Saudi Arabia called on the international community to support Egypt’s efforts, including combating terrorism, while respecting its sovereignty.

Lithuania, in general concluding remarks, said in response to allegations made by the Russian Federation that it would never tolerate racism and xenophobia, and condemned any attacks or acts of vandalism against religious monuments. Lithuania took all necessary measures to identify the perpetrators of such acts and bring them to justice.

Egypt, speaking on behalf of a group of like-minded countries in general concluding remarks, reconfirmed their commitment to actively engage in a constructive and objective manner in the work of the Human Rights Council which was considered as a leading and highly valuable intergovernmental forum in its domain of work. They remained concerned at the gradual erosion of the institutional-building package, and the attempts of non-compliance with the rules of procedures and methods of work of the Council.

Morocco, in general concluding remarks, said that the defence of human rights issues was enshrined with the principles of dialogue and mutual respect. It regretted that the Council had been drifting away from this. The adoption of a record number of resolutions and the detriment of reaching consensus was regrettable. Morocco hoped that the Council would be able to remain faithful to its founding principles.

International Service for Human Rights, in general concluding remarks, said protests played a critical role in promoting human rights and challenging repression and it welcomed ongoing efforts of the Council on this topic. The Council would be judged on its impact on the protection of human rights on the ground.

International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racism, in joint general concluding remarks, said that the universality of human rights was a fundamental principle, and was concerned that some countries enjoyed impunity for their human rights violations. Such was the case of Iraq. They were also concerned by the continued lack of cooperation with the Council by Israel. Finally, they were deeply concerned about the postponement of the nomination of mandate holders, which had to be made on merits only.

Concluding Remarks by the President of the Council

BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA, President of the Human Rights Council, said that sometimes there might be different views but nevertheless the Council could only carry out its mission effectively if, here in the room, there was work on the basis of cooperation and participative dynamics. With regards to reprisals and acts of intimidation, these were unacceptable and should end immediately. All measures had to be taken to prevent these acts. The twenty-sixth session of the Human Rights Council would take place from 10 to 27 June 2014.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC14/056E