HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS GENERAL DEBATES ON ITS SUBSIDIARY BODIES AND ON THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting today heard the presentation of reports of the Social Forum, the Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, and the Forum on Business and Human Rights. The Council then held a general debate on its subsidiary bodies and mechanisms, followed by a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review.

Alberto Pedro d’Alotto, Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations Office at Geneva, presenting the report of the Social Forum on behalf of Monica Roque, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 2014 Social Forum, said an international instrument was needed to give adequate protection to the human rights of the elderly and there had been an urgent call for the negotiation of this. The Social Forum also recommended the change in the current paradigm to one in which the elderly could be rights holders regardless of whether or not they could economically contribute to their societies.

Angélica C. Navarro Llanos, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, presenting the report, said that clearly, peasants and other persons working in rural areas were vulnerable and in need of protection from the various threats that they faced, such as discrimination, climate change, and lack of access to water, land and credit. Peasants played a key role in the conservation and preservation of biodiversity. The declaration should identify and strengthen the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas; increase coherence and visibility of existing rights; and facilitate recognition of new rights such as the right to land, seeds and biodiversity.

Jane Connors, Chief of the Special Procedures Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, presenting the report of the Forum on Business and Human Rights, said the second annual Forum was the largest global gathering for multi-stakeholder dialogue on business and human rights. The programme included presentations of innovative initiatives, discussions on regional challenges, peer learning, overcoming barriers to judicial remedies, the effectiveness of non-judicial remedies, and human rights in the digital domain, among others. The third annual Forum would be held from 1 to 3 December 2015 in Geneva.

During the general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms, speakers addressed a wide number of issues, including the importance of addressing the causes of corruption; they agreed that it would be useful to have a clear, distinct definition of corruption. Concerning the treaty body strengthening, delegations said that a balanced solution which addressed cost savings and efficiency, and additional meeting time on the basis of estimated burden of work and capacity building, was a step in the right direction. Treaty bodies were central to the international human rights system and the reform must lead to a higher level of compliance by States with their reporting obligations.

Special Procedures played very important advocacy and advisory functions for the promotion and protection of human rights across the globe and it was crucial that the process of selection of the mandate holders be based on expertise, experience in the field of the mandate, independence, impartiality, personal integrity and objectivity. Speakers highlighted the fundamental role of peasants and other persons working in rural areas, particularly taking into account the need to reinforce food security and the development of agriculture as decisive factors in eradicating hunger, poverty and social exclusion. Delegations were pleased that the Council had finally started to analyze the situation of elderly persons, a particularly vulnerable group warranting special attention.

Speaking in the general debate were: Ethiopia on behalf of the African Group, Greece on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the group of Likeminded Countries, Honduras on behalf of the Group of 38 States, El Salvador on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Brazil on behalf of a group of countries, Indonesia, China, Ireland, Cuba, Morocco, Algeria, India, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Venezuela, Norway, Iran, Council of Europe, Hungary, Myanmar, and Ecuador.

The following national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations also took the floor during the general debate: National Council for Human Rights of Morocco, Franciscans International, Foodfirst Information and Action Network, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, World Barua Organization, International Buddhist Relief Organization, Asylum Access, International Muslim Women’s Union, World Muslim Congress, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Liberation, Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, Indian Council of South America, Rencontre Africaine pour la defense des droits de l’homme, International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, International Service for Human Rights, Africa Culture International, and Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik.

The Council also held a general debate on item 6, regarding the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism.

Speakers highlighted the importance and valuable contribution made by the Universal Periodic Review process to the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world. The second review cycle should build on previous recommendations and it was of great importance that States made themselves accountable for their commitments. It was essential to maintain the universal character of the process and for States to focus exclusively on human rights and not raise bilateral issues, score political points or take positions on recommendations based on the identity of States making them rather than on their content. Speakers also stressed concerns about the increasing number of incidents of intimidation or reprisals against individuals and groups collaborating with the Council, in particular in the context of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The Voluntary Fund for the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review should be strengthened, especially to help least developed and small island States.

Ethiopia on behalf of the African Group, Greece on behalf of the European Union, Morocco on behalf of the Groupe Francophone, Egypt on behalf of the Arab Group, Russia, China, Ireland, India, Sudan, Council of Europe, Finland, Togo, Denmark and Armenia spoke in the general debate.

The Council is holding a full day of meetings today. This afternoon, at 3 p.m., the Council will hold a panel discussion on preventing and eliminating child, early and forced marriage.

Documentation

The Council has before it the Progress report of the research-based report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on best practices and main challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations (A/HRC/26/40)

The Council has before it the research-based report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the ways and means to enhance international cooperation in the field of human rights (A/HRC/26/41)

The Council has before it the progress report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the issue of the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights (A/HRC/26/42)

The Council has before it the report of the Social Forum of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/26/46)

The Council has before it the report of the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights (A/HRC/26/26)

The Council has before it the report of the Open-ended intergovernmental working group on a United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas (A/HRC/26/48)

Presentation of Reports

ALBERTO PEDRO D’ALOTTO, Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations Office at Geneva, presenting the report of the Social Forum, on behalf of Monica Roque, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 2014 Social Forum, expressed gratitude for the election of Argentina as Chair of the Forum. In the three days during which the Forum was held, a rich debate was held with exchanges of points of view on the needs of elderly persons. It was clear that more protection was needed for them nationally and internationally. On the right to health, not only was a demographic transformation being seen, but also an epidemiological one. Long term care was thus key for all elderly persons. On legal aspects of national and international protection for elderly persons, mechanisms to guarantee the economic, social, cultural and political rights were lacking or inadequate. An international instrument was needed to ensure adequate protection of human rights of the elderly and there had been an urgent call for the negotiation of this. One of the Forum’s outcomes was that all actors had to strive to make it a reality that elderly persons were treated equally and without discrimination. There had been a recommendation to change the current paradigm to one in which the elderly could be rights holders regardless of whether or not they could economically contribute to their societies, as they contributed in so many other ways. Awareness-raising for a society that would promote active aging and the empowerment of elderly persons was the responsibility of everyone.

ANGÉLICA C. NAVARRO LLANOS, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, presenting the report, said that the first meeting of the Working Group had taken place from 15 to 19 July 2013 in which States, international organizations, civil society organizations and associations of peasants had taken part. The three round tables had addressed the issues of the importance of peasants and their contribution to food security, the fight against climate change and the preservation of biodiversity; the human right situation of peasants, particularly with regard to discrimination, poverty and hunger; and the need for a United Nations Declaration on the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas. This first session had been an important opportunity for all stakeholders to discuss the issues and the multiple threats peasants faced, such as discrimination, climate change, and lack of access to water, land and credit. Clearly, peasants and other persons working in rural areas were vulnerable and in need of protection from various threats they faced. It also became evident that peasants and other persons working in rural areas also played key role in the conservation and preservation of biodiversity and were a reservoir of traditional knowledge for food production and ecosystems management.

Discrimination, land tenure security and forced displacement were great threats to the lives and subsistence of peasants. Peasants lacked access to justice and often their individual and collective rights were not recognized. The declaration should identify and strengthen the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas; increase coherence and visibility of existing rights; and facilitate recognition of new rights such as the right to land, seeds and biodiversity. During the first reading of the draft Declaration, it became clear that there were some States which strongly supported the declaration on the rights of peasants, while others had objections about the wording of the text and the process.

JANE CONNORS, Chief of the Special Procedures Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, presenting the report of the Forum on Business and Human Rights, said the second annual Forum was held at the Palais des Nations from 2 to 4 December 2013 and had contributed to a number of achievements. It had built upon the success and high interest in the first Forum held in 2012, making it the largest global gathering for multi-stakeholder dialogue on business and human rights. Over three days, participants took part in a rich programme that catered for different areas of interest and different levels of knowledge of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In total, there were 20 official panel sessions and 25 side events. The preparatory day combined a training session on the Guiding Principles, presentations of innovative initiatives, discussions on regional challenges and peer learning and exchanges on single stakeholder perspectives. In the official opening of the Forum, the Working Group highlighted the key principles that guided its preparation of the Forum, including an emphasis on all three pillars of the Guiding Principles; a commitment to ensure constructive, multi-stakeholder dialogue; and the need to address impunity. Panel sessions had followed on how to overcome barriers to judicial remedies; the effectiveness of non-judicial remedies; and human rights in the digital domain, among others.

The third annual Forum would be held from 1 to 3 December 2014 in Geneva. Some lessons learned from the second Forum included the need to increase business participation, as well as enhance representation from all regions. The next Forum would have a substantial focus on the third pillar of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, ‘access to effective remedy,’ among other items. With so many activities in this field, it was highly important to bring together relevant players every year to take stock of ongoing efforts and of new opportunities and challenges in the area of business and human rights. States, business enterprises, non-governmental organizations and all other stakeholders had to continue to use the Forum as a unique platform that provided the best opportunity to engage in frank and respectful dialogue on how to continue making progress in this area, and thus prevent and address effectively human rights violations that could take place all over the world.

General Debate on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption had been adopted in recognition that corruption undermined accountability and transparency in the management of public affairs. It was important to address the causes of corruption by formulating and pursuing as a matter of priority policies including legislative and preventive measures to protect society against corruption. The African Group would continue to play a constructive role in improving existing instruments to secure the rights of small scale farmers to improve the quality of livelihoods and to bridge the gap between rural and urban populations.

Greece, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that it would continue to stand against attempts of any kind or form to micromanage the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Only a balanced solution which addressed cost savings and efficiency, and additional meeting time on the basis of estimated burden of work and capacity building, could provide a credible step towards strengthening the treaty body system; the reform must lead to a higher level of compliance by States with their reporting obligations. In spite of the concerns regarding the substance and process of the draft declaration on the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas, the European Union had engaged constructively in the discussion and hoped that the new text would answer its concerns.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of a Group of Likeminded Countries, said that Special Procedures played very important advocacy and advisory functions for the promotion and protection of human rights across the globe. It was crucial that the process of selection of the mandate holders, as well as the functioning and renewal of the mandates should be guided strictly by the Council’s Institution Building Package and should be based on expertise, experience in the field of the mandate, independence, impartiality, personal integrity and objectivity. Consideration should be given to gender balance and equitable geographic representation as well as to an appropriate representation of different legal systems.

Honduras, speaking on behalf of a group of 38 States, stressed the importance of strengthening cooperation between States and Special Procedures, and of improving system-wide follow-up and the implementation of recommendations. The ability of mandate-holders to build and work in a cooperative relationship with States was an important determinant of the mechanism’s influence and impact. A country visit and the presentation of a report and recommendations should be seen as the beginning of cooperation. All stakeholders shared a responsibility to work in that spirit, including through maintaining a continued constructive dialogue.

El Salvador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, highlighted the fundamental role of peasants and other persons working in rural areas, whose rights had to be protected and promoted. On the occasion of the International Year of Family Farming, El Salvador stressed the need to reinforce food security and the development of agriculture as decisive factors in eradicating hunger, poverty and social exclusion, which was a fundamental precondition for human rights. El Salvador was pleased that the Council had finally started to analyze the situation of elderly persons, a particularly vulnerable group warranting special attention.

Brazil, speaking on behalf of a group of States, noted that 80 per cent of the people that suffered from extreme poverty and hunger lived and worked in rural areas in developing countries. Brazil believed that 2014 was an opportunity for Governments to incorporate peasants, namely subsistence or resource poor farmers, smallholder farmers, landless people and those living from traditional fishing and hunting. An adoption of a declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas would represent an important contribution to the efforts of the international community in that regard. The mandate of the Working Group should be renewed.

Indonesia said that as an agricultural country with over 39,33 million of its peoples working as farmers, it viewed the promotion and protection of the rights of its farmers with importance. In addition to efforts to safeguard farmers, the Indonesian Government was of the view that empowerment also had an important role to achieve better welfare of farmers. The Working Group could contribute positively to enhancing understanding on the issue of the rights of peasants and others working in rural areas.

China had agreed to give more support to the Universal Periodic Review process. In the field of technical cooperation, South-South or tri partite cooperation should be a supplement and not a substitute to North-South cooperation. Eliminating the negative impact of corruption was an important matter. Respect for and protection of human rights was important for the Chinese Government on various levels. China had strengthened cooperation with the United Nations mechanism on corruption and adopted many measures and laws to eliminate discrimination against elderly persons.

Ireland said human rights treaty bodies were central to the international human rights system. By strengthening these bodies, the protection of human rights was undoubtedly also strengthened. Ireland particularly welcomed the unequivocal condemnation in General Assembly resolution 68/268 of reprisals against those that contributed to the work of the human rights treaty bodies. While much progress had been made, challenges remained. The outcome of the intergovernmental treaty body strengthening process should be viewed as an opportunity for a new beginning.

Cuba highlighted the work done on the draft declaration on the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas. The holding of a Social Forum had demonstrated the importance of bringing attention to the question of the rights of old persons. Cuba believed that the Special Procedures were an important tool, whose effectiveness could be strengthened if they were conducted under the highest human and professional standards. Rushing to value judgments ought to be avoided, as well as interference in sovereign matters of States.

Morocco welcomed the fact that the link between corruption and violations of human rights had been confirmed by the Advisory Committee. The link between corruption and human rights was a matter of public interest, and good practices in that field should be shared. It would be useful to have a clear, distinct definition of corruption. Morocco, together with the members of the core group, would present a draft decision on the subject matter, which would request that the Advisory Committee submit its final report to the Council in March 2015.

Algeria said that the Second Forum on Business and Human Rights had been a success, and strengthening the implementation of the Guidelines was now important. The lack of mechanisms for establishing accountability and remedies required was a problem, which was why an internationally binding legal instrument would be a noteworthy initiative. The Special Procedures had to be free from any attempts to be selective and politicized, and it was essential to ensure that the selection process for mandate holders was transparent and to take into consideration independence, objectivity and equitable geographic distribution.

India said that the Special Procedures were an important mechanism of the Council and it was of fundamental importance that mandate holders remained truly impartial and independent. India regretted that despite concerns voiced in the past, some mandate-holders continued to disregard the Code of Conduct. Recommendations should also conform to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and be constructive and relative to the country. There was deep concern at increasing politicization in the selection of the Special Procedures.

Republic of Korea said that, as it had indicated in the twelfth session of the Advisory Committee, a clear definition for local government needed to be established and the future debate on the roles of local government should remain both non-political and practical. It attached great importance to business and human rights. However, given that it was just three years ago that the Guiding Principles were adopted, it had doubts on the usefulness of starting a process of creating a new binding international instrument at this juncture.

South Africa said the severe vulnerabilities of peasants which were precipitated by the phenomenon of globalization made it absolutely necessary for the Human Rights Council to take appropriate interventions to protect the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas. South Africa maintained that transnational corporations and other business enterprises had to bear direct accountability under human rights law and international humanitarian law for human rights violations in their operational activities.

Venezuela was glad to hear the presentation focus on the rights of older persons, which emphasized the need to enhance their protection and guarantee their pensions, regardless of their capacity to contribute. Venezuela recognized the importance of the Social Forum in promoting the protection of human rights, which was why Venezuela would continue to support its work. The positive role of peasants and persons working in rural areas to global food security should be recognized. Venezuela supported the drafting of a new international instrument on the rights of persons living in rural areas.

Norway noted that the number of participants in the Social Forum had made it a success, as it had become an important stage for engagement across all stakeholders. Norway believed that there had to be room for both voicing concerns and grievances as well as sharing of lessons learned. Business enterprises ought to be engaged more effectively, and topics in the Forum had to be also tailored to the needs of business. Victims should be engaged, which should help clarify some of the most challenging issues in the field.

Iran thought that there was a dire need for the careful examination of infrastructural obstacles for the full realization of international cooperation in the field of human rights. Cultural intolerance, mistrust, and lack of respect for the diversity of others’ traditions and religions were among main obstacles that seriously harmed the enhancement of international cooperation. The Human Rights Council was expected to focus on constructive international dialogue, cooperation and capacity building to ensure the realization of human rights for all.

Council of Europe said that, with regards to the internet, all institutions of the Council of Europe had the objective of protecting freedom of expression and other rights of internet users. The European Court of Human Rights had stated that States had to ensure protection for the private lives of citizens on the internet. The Court had also recalled that there should be protection of the freedom of expression for journalists with regards to the internet. Journalists had to be able to carry out their work without fear of sanctions that may hinder them.

Hungary shared the view that it was unacceptable that civil society paid the ultimate price for peaceful and legitimate interaction with the United Nations and its human rights mechanisms. It was therefore alarmed to learn about recent cases of arrest, detention or intimidation of individuals in relation to their work and engagement with United Nations mechanisms in Geneva, but also in New York. Reprisals undermined the effective functioning not only of the Council and its Special Procedures, but of the entire United Nations system.

Myanmar said that one of the cornerstones of its foreign policy was its cooperation with the United Nations. Although always opposed to country specific mandates, Myanmar had extended invitations to the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar. At this juncture, it regretted to draw attention to public statements and communications by certain Special Rapporteurs. Myanmar requested the Human Rights Council to ensure that the Special Procedures mandate-holders complied with the Code of Conduct.

Ecuador, concerning the report of the Working Group on the rights of peasants, underscored the importance of maintaining a dialogue with a view to drafting a United Nations declaration on this subject; and stressed that its first meeting constituted a significant step towards the strengthening of international instruments regarding the situation of peasants. Concerning the forum on businesses and human rights, Ecuador suggested gearing the discussion towards victims and specific aspects, as well as facilitating the participation of non-governmental organizations.

National Council for Human Rights of Morocco, in the context of the implementation of the plan of action on business and human rights, drew attention to different activities implemented in Morocco under its different pillars, including a multi-stakeholders’ seminar and groundwork on domestic workers. The National Council had also organised events at the national level and would begin programmes concerning the plan of action.

Franciscans International recognised the forum as a platform for victims to engage in dialogue with other stakeholders but highlighted the need to enhance the forum as a vehicle for the formulation of recommendations. Franciscans International called on the Government of the Philippines to ensure the protection of indigenous peoples in mining areas and to ensure that their rights were respected.

Foodfirst Information and Action Network supported the adoption of a United Nations declaration on the human rights of peasants and people living in rural communities. Such a regulatory framework was needed as they were the ones suffering most from hunger and extreme poverty. The situation of rural women was of particular concern. States were called upon to vote in favour of the resolution tabled by Bolivia, and to actively support the work of the Working Group in its coming sessions.

International Association of Democratic Lawyers said that enough food was produced in the world to feed everyone, but one out of seven people in the world was still hungry. Hunger was a result of deliberate economic policies promoted by rich countries and transnational corporations. Several private enterprises interested in amalgamating their profits were destroying the environment and thus condemning to death millions of citizens. All States should take part in the work of the intergovernmental Working Group on that subject.

World Barua Organization stated that every victim of a human rights violation had the right to the restoration of their violated rights and redress of grievances. In northeast India, impunity remained a serious problem, particularly for abuses committed by security forces. United Nations mechanisms were called upon to impress upon the Indian Government to honour the human rights and the right to peace of its people.

International Buddhist Relief Organization underscored, in the context of India, the importance of engagement with the Special Procedures. The visit of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions had opened up space for the Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association to approach the Supreme Court of India to seek justice in 1,528 cases of extrajudicial killings in the State of Manipur.

Asylum Access was pleased that the Forum and the Working Group had focused attention on the rights and needs of individuals at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization. The Working Group was urged to include refugees and asylum seekers in its strategic consideration and methods of work in implementing the Guiding Principles.

International Muslim Women’s Union said that the Special Procedures were a vital part of the United Nations human rights machinery. However, human rights defenders in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir were facing reprisals for cooperating with Special Procedures. All States had to ensure that reprisals against persons cooperating with United Nations mechanisms had to end.

World Muslim Congress recognised the attention paid to the issue of reprisals and intimidation against individuals and groups cooperating with the Council but much more needed to be done. Despite the whole system of Special Procedures, defenders in conflict zones in territories under foreign occupation continued to be intimidated, harassed and even killed. In Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir human rights defenders were facing the worst kind of reprisals.

Organization for Defending Victims of Violence said that peace and security were challenged by ethnic conflict. While the protection of minorities as an specific item had appeared in human rights studies, covenants and resolutions, the way in which the general principle for the protection of the rights of minorities was implemented was a question that had not been answered. Identifying between extremist groups and the real defenders could serve as a first step in the reduction of violence.

Reporters Without Borders said that surveillance technologies were being used for repressive means, including repression and torture. A protective legal framework was necessary to address this situation, including the sale of surveillance equipment leading to human rights violations. The Council must lead efforts towards effective measures to address these abuses, such as strengthening the Working Group to respond to complaints.

Liberation said that the work of the civil sector in India had contributed to the protection of the environment and reigning in the Government and the private sector which were bringing poverty onto rural people. The Government had now delayed money transfers from foreign donors to environmental non-governmental organizations. The Council was deplored to take action on the worsening situation of the civil sector in India.

Centre Europe-Tiers Monde stated that landless peasants and those living from traditional fishing and hunting were often the first victims of discrimination. The human rights instruments were not sufficient to protect the human rights of such people, which was why the Human Rights Council should adopt a declaration on the rights of peasants. It was important to follow up on the work of the existing Working Group.

Indian Council of South America said that the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples was a polarizing issue. The General Assembly was conducting pro forme consultations at the moment, with many individuals and puppet groups claiming to represent regions that they in reality were not representing. That oversight by the Human Rights Council ought to be rectified.

Rencontre Africaine Pour la Defense des Droits de l'Homme took note of the report on corruption and human rights. Since the adoption of the African Union Convention on the Prevention of Corruption, many countries had set up mechanisms to address corruption. Lack of transparency posed a significant challenge to combat corruption and currently many countries did not require the appropriate registration mechanisms concerning companies’ ownership, property and commercial transactions.

International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movement noted that a large number of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition were rural workers, which was a paradox arising from human rights violations. The project declaration emphasised the equality of peasants and the non-discriminatory enjoyment of rights. Peasants’ activities could contribute to a sustainable economy and the Federation supported the Working Group.

International Service for Human Rights said more was needed to reassure human rights defenders that the United nations was serious about their protection. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights had led the way in designating a reprisals focal point. A more robust, coordinated United Nations response to challenge reprisals was urgently needed.

Africa Culture International said that the term social responsibility meant that business should take care of its actions, be diligent and observe international instruments for the protection of human rights. Given the increased poverty, many Governments regrettably refused to recognize trade unions as indispensable partners in the process of development of their countries.

Sudwind hoped that the election of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations would have enough candidates from regions where human rights defenders were oppressed, such as from Iran. Sudwind regretted that States did not respond to the Special Procedures in a timely, proper and substantive manner. States were urged to cooperate fully with the Special Procedures.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that it attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review, away from politicization and selectivity. The African Group reiterated its call for the full respect of the General Assembly resolution 60/251 with a view to preserving that mechanism from any attempt to undermine its founding principles. The Voluntary Fund for the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review should be strengthened, especially to help least developed and small island States.

Greece, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that since its establishment the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had steadily contributed to the protection and promotion of human rights at the country level throughout the world. The second cycle should build on the outcome of the first one, in order to avoid gaps, and it was important to keep States accountable for their commitments. While the relations between States and independent non-governmental organizations were exemplary in many cases, the European Union was concerned by increasingly frequent incidents of harassment, intimidation and reprisals towards civil society representatives and their organizations related to their participation.

Morocco, speaking on behalf of the Groupe Francophone, shared some of the conclusions of the seminar held in Chisinau from 11 to 12 April 2014, in collaboration with the Republic of Moldova, including the need for coherence and synergy in the support provided to States for the implementation of national priorities; the promotion of a dialogue between States and other partners for the implementation of recommendations; and exchanging information regarding assessments and strategies for implementation. Recommendations should be practical, constructive, forward looking and implementable, and a mid-term report two years after the review was necessary to track implementation.

Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, reiterated that the Universal Periodic Review process was one of the most important mechanisms for the protection of human rights, which emphasized the importance of all States undergoing the review. In order to ensure the mechanism would succeed, strict rules were necessary without politicizing the process. Concerning equality, the Arab Group welcomed the assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner and encouraged the establishment of clear plans and programmers on the basis of the recommendations accepted.

Russia said that the Universal Periodic Review had already shown its effectiveness and that almost all States tried to improve their human rights situations in line with the recommendations received in their reviews. It was essential that the Universal Periodic Review process remained independent and impartial as this was the best mechanism to counter country-specific resolutions and mandates.

China believed that the Universal Periodic Review as a mechanism was an important platform for countries to conduct frank dialogue on human rights situations, which should remain free from selectivity and politicization. All countries should capitalize on this mechanism to share good practices in the promotion and protection of human rights and States should understand the situation of the State under review and keep the recommendations realistic and appropriate.

Ireland said that key to the Universal Periodic Review process was its universal character and that all States should focus exclusively on human rights and not raise bilateral issues, score political points or take positions on recommendations based on the identity of States making them rather than on their content. It was not an acceptable practice for States under review to negotiate changes to recommendations after they had been made. Due respect must be given to all stakeholders in the process, States, civil society, national human rights institutions or United Nations bodies.

India said that the Universal Periodic Review was one of the most significant mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, and commended contributions of all to make it a success. There was broad agreement that the process had made a tangible contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights all over the world. India was concerned over the so-called “media highlights” on the Universal Periodic Review website of the Office of the High Commissioner, which was often selective and subjective.

Sudan reiterated its support to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and reaffirmed that its exploitation by some countries for political purposes did not help realize the desired objectives of the mechanism. It should remain free from politicization and double standards, while new legal criteria which were not mutually agreed upon should not be imposed. Sudan stressed the importance of technical assistance and capacity building in accordance with States’ needs.

Council of Europe noted positive developments regarding the Universal Periodic Review process, including the affirmation of the universal nature of the process, which brought together all States, a better understanding of the nature of problems that human rights organizations were faced with, and increased transparency as far as the work of Governments was concerned. It was regrettable that there was no possibility for the direct involvement of the Council of Europe in the Universal Periodic Review Working Group.

Finland informed that Finland had submitted its voluntary mid-term report, including an annex containing a separate submission by its autonomous and independent national human rights institution. The review mechanism provided an important channel to elaborate on national achievements and challenges in a constructive and equal manner based on true dialogue among States; and had been a positive experience and civil society had largely contributed: a well-functioning civil society was an essential part of the implementation infrastructure.

Togo attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review process as an effective mechanism to protecting human rights in the field. During its first cycle, held in 2011, Togo had accepted 122 out of 133 recommendations and over 23 had begun to be implemented. Togo had also submitted a mid-term report which presented a detailed table reporting on efforts accomplished in the field of strengthening State institutions, harmonisation of domestic norms and international standards, among others.

Denmark recalled that during its first review cycle, Denmark had pledged to deliver a voluntary mid-term review of the implementation of the accepted recommendations. Denmark had accepted a further 20 of the 49 recommendations that had been rejected at the review examination in 2011, relating to the accession to the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, penal code provisions concerning racism, rape and sexual assault, and the establishment of an independent Ombudsman for children.

Armenia said that it was not possible to avoid politicization of the Universal Periodic Review process as in many cases human rights and politics were interrelated. It was regrettable to see some States refusing recommendations addressed to them for political reasons, trying to give new interpretation to the human rights framework. The Universal Periodic Review should be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC14/083E