HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON CHALLENGES AND GOOD PRACTICES IN MAINSTREAMING HUMAN RIGHTS IN NATIONAL POLICIES

The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting held a panel discussion on national policies and human rights, which focused on identifying challenges, further developments and good practices in mainstreaming human rights in national policies and programmes.

Juan Esteban Aguirre Martinez, Vice President of the Council, in his opening remarks, said that the discussion today aimed at bridging the gap between the sphere of legal obligations on human rights and concrete actions by States to promote effectively the full enjoyment of human rights by all citizens.

In his opening statement, Gianni Magazzeni, Chief of the Americas, Europe and Central Asia Branch, Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the High Commissioner’s report on technical assistance and capacity-building options for integrating human rights into national policies did not propose a single blueprint for policy. Instead, it identified approaches and methods that demonstrably worked, and presented a methodological framework and lessons learned, alongside 20 examples of technical assistance covering all regions of the world and a wide spectrum of human rights issues. It was vital that all national stakeholders participated at every stage of policy development, including civil society, and policy cohesion was essential.

Rytis Paulauskas, Permanent Representative of Lithuania to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Panel Moderator, in his opening remarks, asked the panellists about translating human rights obligations into real and effective change, the most effective mechanisms to do so, measuring the impact of the policy, and strengthening regional and sub-regional cooperation through comparative processes.

Héctor Cárdenas, Minister and Executive Secretary, Ministry of Social Action of Paraguay, spoke about Paraguay’s recent move to a rights-based approach with strengthened participation from people in vulnerable and poverty situations, and mentioned that positive achievements included strengthening the inclusion of indigenous peoples, and programmes to improve their food security and promote their access to basic social services.

Pabel Muñoz, National Secretary for Planning and Development of Ecuador, said that
since the current Government came to power, Ecuador had achieved poverty reduction by 15 per cent, halved the poverty gap, improved trust in the health system, and lowered the unemployment rate to 3.8 per cent, making it the second lowest in the region. All this had been achieved through a cross-cutting approach to human rights, and a national policy that specifically targeted different regions according to needs.

Dalila Aliane, Head of Research and Synthesis, Ministry of National Solidarity, Family and the Status of Women, Algeria, spoke about Algeria’s efforts to expand the human rights space and programmes to promote the rights of women in particular. Algeria believed it was important to put a substantial amount of its resources into social investment and was convinced of the value of ‘social capital’ and investing in women. A participatory society was enshrined in national legislation and women had 30 per cent representation in decision-making positions.

Vitit Muntarbhorn, Professor of Law and former Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, Thailand, said that in less open settings, the promotion and protection of human rights was quite difficult with regard to civil and political rights, but usually there was room for improvement on economic, social and cultural rights; this was particularly the case for the rights of vulnerable groups, such as women and children. Human rights mainstreaming depended on eight entry points: good laws, policies and plans, practices and case verdict enforcement, good mechanisms and personnel, resources, good information and monitoring, good education and capacity building, and good participation and networking between various stakeholders.

Giuseppe Nesi, Professor, Director of the Faculty of Law, University of Trento, Italy, said that the issue of integration of human rights into national policies had been the subject of discussions in recent years; however States did not always ensure this integration. Over the past 18 months, the Italian Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights had strengthened its role as a key pillar in the implementation of human rights in Italy and the integration of human rights in national policies, and had become the focal point for any part of the Government. It was clear that the Committee had a crucial role in influencing and contributing to the integration of human rights in national policies in Italy, but it did not replace what could be done by the National Human Rights Institution.

In the ensuing discussion, speakers shared their countries’ experiences and best practices in the mainstreaming of human rights in national policies and stressed cross-cutting policies, the human rights-based approach to development, and technical cooperation assistance as key factors in this respect. International, regional, and bilateral support, as well as South-South cooperation and triangular, multi-partner, pro-bono funding for cooperation were important, as were material and non-material resources at the local level and a more efficient allocation of resources at the national level. Challenges mentioned were indicators to measure improvements, bridging the gap between norms and their implementation, corporate social responsibility, and the accountability of different actors.

Speaking were Ecuador on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, European Union, Portugal, Algeria on behalf of a like-minded group of States, Pakistan speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Bahrain, India, Peru, Republic of Moldova, Indonesia, Burkina Faso, Iran, France, Estonia, Venezuela, Algeria, Thailand, Namibia, Colombia, Mexico, Greece, Morocco, Republic of Congo and the Russian Federation.

Scottish Human Rights Commission, Centre for National Human Rights Policy, International Service for Human Rights, National Human Rights Council of Morocco, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, and Sudwind also took the floor.

The Council is holding a full day of meetings today. At 3 p.m., it will consider the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review of Iraq, Madagascar and Slovenia.

Introductory Remarks

JUAN ESTEBAN AGUIRRE MARTINEZ, Vice President of the Council, said in its resolution 27/26 on national policies and human rights, the Council decided to convene, at its twenty-eighth session, a panel discussion on the issue of national policies and human rights, with a particular focus on the findings of the report (A/HRC/27/41), identifying challenges, further developments and good practices in mainstreaming human rights in national policies and programmes. The panel would discuss different worldwide experiences on the issue of introducing the mainstreaming of human rights in national policies of States in order to bridge the gap between the sphere of legal obligations on human rights and concrete action by the State to promote effectively the full enjoyment of these rights by all its citizens.

Opening Statement

GIANNI MAGAZZENI, Chief of the Americas, Europe and Central Asia Branch, Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, described the report developed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on technical assistance and capacity-building options for integrating human rights into national policies. The report did not propose a single blueprint for policy but instead identified positive approaches and methods that demonstrably worked. It presented a methodological framework and lessons learned, alongside 20 examples of technical assistance covering all regions of the world and a wide spectrum of human rights issues.

For example, in Kenya, Palestine and Ecuador, a number of interesting policies, strategies and laws had strengthened planning and development frameworks. Mexico, Togo and Tunisia had implemented impressive constitutional reforms or transitional justice processes. Morocco, Haiti and Paraguay had strengthened national consultation and participation for the follow-up of human rights recommendations and to develop indicators. Lebanon, Guatemala and Senegal had taken very relevant measures to protect discriminated groups. In Bolivia, Cambodia and Russia, there had been work to strengthen educational curricula.

All those achievements over the last four years illustrated the important action underway in many countries to promote and protect human rights in ways that had real impact on people’s lives. It was vital that all national stakeholders participated at every stage of policy development, including – perhaps most crucially – civil society. That could not merely be ‘lip-service’ – participation must involve real contribution and the willingness to compromise. Policy cohesion was also essential. The examples in the report were very concrete but they were also intended to be inspirational. They were real options available to all Member States. A human rights based approach created more efficient and sustainable policy in every field.

Statement by the Moderator

RYTIS PAULAUSKAS, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Lithuania to the United Nations Office and other international organizations at Geneva and Moderator of the Panel, said that the debate on the issue of national policies and human rights was timeless. Since the signing of the United Nations Charter in 1945, there had been agreement that there was no peace without development, no development without peace, and neither peace nor development without human rights. Mr. Paulaskas hoped that today representatives of Member States, experts, as well as representatives of non-governmental organizations would discuss the best practices for national policies to improve human rights. Human rights were the core pillar of all activities. Mr. Paulaskas posed three strategic questions to all panellists: how to translate human rights obligations into real and effective change; what were the most effective mechanisms to do so, and how was the impact of the policy to be measured; and how to strengthen regional and sub-regional cooperation through comparative processes of the promotion and protection of human rights.

Statements by the Panellists

HÉCTOR CÁRDENAS, Minister and Executive Secretary, Ministry of Social Action, Government of Paraguay, spoke about Paraguay’s recent move to a rights-based approach with strengthened participation from people in vulnerable and poverty situations. Following up on recommendations made to Paraguay in the Universal Periodic Review, Paraguay had sought technical assistance which had led to many positive achievements. They included programmes to strengthen the inclusion of indigenous peoples and their food security and promote their access to basic social services, and capacity building training of 205 civil servants. Around 20 per cent of indigenous peoples living in extreme poverty had been supported by a cash transfer programme. Persons with severe disabilities had recently been included in the cash transfer programme. A participatory Gender Programme and Plan of Action guided institutions towards equal opportunities programmes and projects. Furthermore, an online system had been launched to monitor the implementation of human rights recommendations made to Paraguay by international bodies including the Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review.

PABEL MUÑOZ, National Secretary for Planning and Development of the Government of Ecuador, highlighted the underpinning idea of development with a human rights-based approach. How to mainstream human rights and policies was an issue which underpinned the post-2015 debate in which Ecuador wished to take part. Ecuador did this first through the Constitution which was based on justice and rights, each of which were equal and indivisible. Living well was a paradigm in development and this included having rights to water, food, a healthy environment, communication, science, education and social security. Ecuador had set up plans that cut across all these issues. Since the current Government had been in power, Ecuador had achieved poverty reduction by 15 per cent, halved the poverty gap, improved trust in the health system with 45,000 consultations in 2014, and lowered the unemployment rate to 3.8 per cent, making it the second lowest in the region. All this had been achieved through a cross-cutting approach to human rights, and a national policy that specifically targeted different regions according to needs. Ecuador was committed to eradicate extreme poverty by 2017.

DALILA ALIANE, Head of Research and Synthesis, Ministry of National Solidarity, Family and the Status of Women, Algeria, spoke about Algeria’s efforts to expand the human rights space and programmes to promote the rights of women in particular. Algeria believed it was important to put a substantial amount of its resources into social investment and was convinced of the value of ‘social capital’ and investing in women. Ms. Aliane highlighted the provision of free education and efforts to get girls into higher education, saying in Algeria 63 per cent of people holding a diploma were women. A participatory society was enshrined in national legislation and women had 30 per cent representation in decision-making positions. Currently, Algeria was ranked first in the Arab world and twenty-seventh on the international scale in terms of women in politics. Women also played a key role in national reconciliation processes. Ms. Aliane described micro credit schemes which supported women entrepreneurs and helped them work in various fields of agriculture and industry. Those schemes also supported rural women and women with disabilities. She also spoke about initiatives for youth, children and orphans.

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Professor of Law and former Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, Thailand, said that in less open settings, the promotion and protection of human rights was quite difficult with regard to civil and political rights, but usually there was room for improvement on economic, social and cultural rights; this was particularly the case for the rights of vulnerable groups, such as women and children. United Nations actions needed to reach not only governmental agents and institutions, but also those of civil society. Human rights mainstreaming depended on eight entry points: good laws, policies and plans, practices and case verdict enforcement, good mechanisms and personnel, resources, good information and monitoring, good education and capacity building, and good participation and networking between various stakeholders. Noting an example of Thailand, Mr. Muntarbhorn said that the first human rights plan was in essence very good, but lacked in coordination and monitoring; this had been addressed in the second human rights plan, as was human rights monitoring. The second plan also targeted the Ministry of Defence, which had direct relevance on the situation of human rights.

RYTIS PAULAUSKAS, Permanent Representative of Lithuania to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, asked Mr. Nesi about how the Italian Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights meaningfully addressed the human rights situation in the country and how it related to the United Nations agencies and bodies on key human rights issues.

GIUSEPPE NESI, Professor, Director of the Faculty of Law, University of Trento, Italy, said that the issue of integration of human rights into national policies had been the subject of discussions in recent years; however States did not always ensure this integration. Over the past 18 months, the Italian Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights had strengthened its role as a key pillar in the implementation of human rights in Italy and the integration of human rights in national policies, and had become the focal point for any part of the Government. Ten ministries were represented in the Committee, together with relevant public institutions, including local authorities. The Committee was in charge of preparing periodic and ad hoc reports to human rights treaty bodies, and to ensure the implementation of the conventions that Italy was party to. The Committee considered most sensitive human rights issues, including illegal migration and the rights of migrants, the fight against discrimination, including against Roma and Sinti communities, the administration of justice, counterterrorism, and the protection of the most vulnerable. It was clear that the Committee had a crucial role in influencing and contributing to the integration of human rights in national policies in Italy, but it did not replace what could be done by the national human rights institution.


Discussion

Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said its Member States acknowledged the importance of international, regional and bilateral support, especially in tackling poverty. Technical assistance had enabled the Community to build a rights-based approach in both national and local policies. European Union said learning from best practices according to individual States’ needs and policies was key and the European Union noted the contribution of United Nations entities, in particular in preventing trafficking. Portugal welcomed that the panel discussion included sign language and captioning and hoped that in future all Council meetings would be accessible in that way. It also spoke about the important input of civil society into human rights policies.

Algeria, speaking on behalf of a like-minded group of States, said the mainstreaming of human rights into the design and implementation of national policies was a key area and should be a focus of future technical assistance. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said the availability of resources for capacity building was key for the effective implementation of human rights based policies. The Organization also spoke about the importance of human rights education. Bahrain spoke about its High Committee for Coordinating Human Rights set up in 2012, which was responsible for drafting national human rights plans and reviewing follow-up to recommendations made. India spoke about its move from an impact-based approach to a rights-based approach and said human rights awareness and access to information were key enablers in terms of capacity building.

Peru said public policies were extremely important as they were the bridge between norms and their implementation. Peru underlined the importance of sharing good practices, and therefore shared some of its national human rights policies and training programmes. Republic of Moldova said that the systematic implementation of human rights recommendations by United Nations mechanisms could have a significant impact on the ground. The establishment of a permanent and inclusive national coordination mechanism in this regard was critical. Indonesia said mainstreaming human rights policies would help achieve development goals. Indonesia had adopted a national plan on human rights with measurable indicators. Burkina Faso said it had adopted a national policy for human rights and civil participation, seeking to ensure that everybody enjoyed sustainable development by 2022. The first action plan faced challenges, including in terms of budgeting.

Scottish Human Rights Commission, in a video message, said Scotland’s National Action Plan followed and developed best international practices with a collaborative and inclusive approach. The Commission was committed to sharing its experience in this regard. Korea Centre for National Human Rights Policy said the Korean national action plan had lacked efforts to act as the Government was constantly waiting for social consensus on a variety of issues, and failed to raise the population’s awareness. International Service for Human Rights recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner assisted States to adopt further legislation and national policies to ensure the protection of human rights defenders. It should also encourage the sharing of good practices on the protection of human rights defenders, and appoint a human rights defender focal point within their national human rights institutions.

Responses by the Panellists

GIANNI MAGAZZENI, Chief of the Americas, Europe and Central Asia Branch, Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, underlined how essential human rights indicators were, and described tools which had been developed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for States to use. Answering the question about national ownership of human rights policites, he recommended the use of a national human rights action plan led by the Government with broad participation from all the key stakeholders, which made it easier for other actors to provide support in the context of a Government-led framework of cooperation. Regarding the participation of non-State entities in developing national human rights policies, Mr. Magazzeni said the transparency of engagement with such stakeholders, including civil society, was critical for success.

HÉCTOR CÁRDENAS, Minister and Executive Secretary, Ministry of Social Action, Government of Paraguay, said the participation of all the three branches of a Government – the legislative, the judiciary and the executive – was key for successful capacity building and mainstreaming. Education for Government officials and civil servants was very important, said Mr. Cárdenas, giving the example of valuable training given to civil servants in Paraguay on how to work with indigenous peoples. State institutions had the responsibility to make sure people knew about their rights, and how to access their rights, and civil society had a role to play in that.

PABEL MUÑOZ, National Secretary for Planning and Development, Ecuador, said that Ecuador had applied a cross-cutting approach in its national development plan and included personal responsibility for effective mainstreaming for all civil servants. The coordination between Ministries had been improved and plans to this effect had been put in place. Ecuador had identified key issues of universal nature that were mainstreamed in all policies, which included disability, equality, gender and inter-generational issues.

DALILA ALIANE, Ministry of National Solidarity, the Family and the Status of Women of Algeria, said that support for national human rights institutions, including for their setting up, was crucial, and it needed to be accompanied by an arsenal of legislation that would enable their work. The Human Rights Council also played an important role in improving the human rights situation in its Member States.

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Professor of Law, former Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, Thailand, stated that technical cooperation assistance could be multifaceted and cover several aspects of rights. It was very difficult in conflict situations. Looking at technical cooperation from the angle of funds linked with the United Nations, there were at least two funds, one being the fund for technical cooperation in human rights and the other being the Universal Periodic Review. Mr. Muntarbhorn stressed the importance of these funds, as well as that of South-South cooperation and un-earmarked funding. Access to funding for civil society had to be provided, in line with the “rights up front” policy promoted by the United Nations. In New York, the Democracy Fund, and the Human Securities Fund existed and these could be tapped into. Triangular, multi-partner, pro-bono funding for cooperation was important, as was not forgetting material and non-material resources at the local level, such as pro-bono work and social contributions. A more efficient allocation of resources at the national level was needed.

GIUSEPPE NESI, Director of the Faculty of Law, University of Trento, Italy, underlined the role of the European Union’s directives in combatting trafficking and strengthening its Member States’ capacity to combat this phenomena through cooperation.

Discussion

Iran said States should bear the responsibility to develop respect for human rights and chose the framework that was best suited to their particular needs. Iran underlined the importance of international cooperation in the field of human rights. Iran was continuing to work on establishing a national human rights institution. France said mainstreaming human rights in all public policies was an important goal, and underlined the importance of paying due attention to recommendations by human rights mechanisms. France underlined the crucial role played by civil society in that regard. Estonia said international treaties prevailed on its domestic legislation, adding that it had ratified all the main European and international human rights treaties. There had been 10 human rights roundtables with non-governmental organizations organized in Estonia since 2010. Venezuela said it was a democratic State that respected the rule of law and the prevalence of human rights. A high-level council of the executive was in charge of the development of human rights policies. Algeria said its constitution had enshrined the protection of all human rights as an intangible principle. Algeria had a national consultative commission on human rights which played a significant role. Algeria underlined the importance of international technical assistance and capacity building.

Thailand said that its National Human Rights Plan, now in its third edition, had been drafted in close coordination with all sectors of the society and stressed that national human rights policies must place people at the centre and address the plight of the most vulnerable. Namibia acknowledged that a human rights based approach was the only way to put in place a legislative framework and policies to protect the rights of people and stressed the importance of technical assistance to States which had difficulties in aligning their policies with their international human rights commitments. Colombia said that its national efforts to promote and protect human rights were in line with its international human rights obligations, and were built from the ground for the ground; the polices were not fleeting and ensured a sustained approach over time. The national human rights programme in Mexico was the result of recommendations received under the Universal Periodic Review and the rulings of regional human rights bodies, showing that recommendations from international human rights organizations were a valuable benchmark in developing national policies.

Greece said that national policies were not complete or even effective if they were not based on human rights, and stressed the importance of technical assistance and capacity building by regional bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The human rights provisions of the 2011 Constitution of Morocco represented a real human rights charter and Morocco had also developed a national action plan for the implementation of recommendations received under the Universal Periodic Review. China said that human rights had been enshrined in its Constitution in 2004; China had developed its National Human Rights Plan in 2009 and said that the formulation of the Chinese dream would bring human rights to a new height.

National Human Rights Council of Morocco said mainstreaming human rights in public policies was an important challenge in Morocco. A draft action plan had been adopted and included civil society participation. The National Human Rights Council considered that the mainstreaming process would necessarily involve the strengthening of the legislative framework on human rights. Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain urged all Member States to align their national policies with international standards. The lack of accountability mechanisms remained a major challenge to the implementation of international human rights. Sudwind said that State action aimed at the full realisation of human rights was more efficient with national human rights policies. The excuse of sanctions for not protecting economic, social and cultural rights was not good enough, and corruption had to be addressed.

Republic of Congo said it had always placed human rights at the centre of its concern, and had them enshrined in its constitution. The Republic of Congo had three mechanisms for national policy and protecting and promoting human rights. Civil society participated in the elaboration of policies for the most vulnerable groups. Russian Federation said it was a democracy guided by the rule of law and it guaranteed the human rights of its people. A national strategy for human rights had been adopted and aimed at promoting tolerance, human rights and dialogue. The Russian Federation attached great importance to the rights of indigenous people.

Concluding Remarks

RYTIS PAULAUSKAS, Permanent Representative of Lithuania to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, said that the delegations has raised a number of issues, including on how to include non-State actors and civil society in the implementation of human rights plans and policies, the existing gaps between law and practice, accountability, and the impact of regional initiatives on national situations.

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Professor of Law and former Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, Thailand, pointed to the diversity of non-State actors and said that consultative processes and mechanisms, such as public hearings, and also human rights impact assessments and related processes, could be used as entry points for participation. The role of women was also important and the door must be opened to consult with non-nationals on the respective rights. There were different levels of accountability; the first to look into was whether the national justice system worked or not, and then to look at regional and international accountability mechanisms. One of the problems was that the United Nations Security Council was not referring country situations to the International Criminal Court because of the veto; the discussion at the moment was whether the General Assembly could refer situations or even establish ad hoc tribunals. Another important mechanism to ensure accountability for egregious human rights violations was the universal jurisdiction of States.

GIANNI MAGAZZENI, Chief of the Americas, Europe and Central Asia Branch, Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that it was important to identify critical gaps and the cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and other human rights treaty bodies. An effective national human rights plan was one which saw cooperation with civil society. The role of national human rights institutions was crucial in increasing national ownership of plans and policies, as was linking efforts to advance human rights with development efforts.

GIUSEPPE NESI, Professor, and Director of the Faculty of Law of the University of Trento, Italy, stated that in a world where the principle of non-interference was gaining importance in the human rights field, there were States such as Estonia that supported the principle according to which international law was superior to domestic law. There had been reforms of constitutional systems according to which international law did matter, especially in the field of human rights. In this framework, the effects of this were that the legal systems that recognized the primacy of international law also incorporated decisions in internal judicial bodies. The repercussions were extremely important as regarded legislation. When a State acknowledged fundamental principles genuinely, in order to be consistent, the legislation and decisions of judges had to take these fundamental principles into account. This was one of the best ways to incorporate human rights in national policies as well as in legal systems.

HÉCTOR CÁRDENAS, Minister and Executive Secretary, Ministry of Social Action, Government of Paraguay, referred to the two cases on indicators in Mexico, one of which monitored recommendations on human rights. This was a tool to facilitate knowledge and follow-up on a series of indicators in response to recommendations made with regard to Paraguay. The competent governmental and legislative bodies would follow up and as action was taken these were recorded in the database. This mechanism was important as it provided access to all citizens and strengthened the coordination between institutions. An experience that was ongoing and that involved the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Paraguay focused on building human rights indicators related to economic, social and cultural rights that were disaggregated in different ways: the classic way as well as taking into account vulnerable groups. This facilitated formulation of polices and how they were monitored and their implementation.

PABEL MUÑOZ, National Secretary for Planning and Development, Ecuador, said in reference to the question by Mexico, indicators measuring development had adopted the traditional and conservative approaches. For Ecuador, there was a project aimed at reaching the goal of “living well”, but this was hardly measurable by indicators. Mechanisms that included civil society representatives existed in Ecuador. There was a pluri-national assembly that adopted national plans. Under the Constitution, policies could not be adopted without the involvement of different stakeholders.

DALILA ALIANE, Ministry of National Solidarity, the Family and the Status of Women of Algeria, agreed with Greece that women were the most vulnerable group, and that it was crucial to empower women and give them the opportunity to take on leadership positions. Women were the largest category in a society. Algeria had been able to take measures to empower women and strengthen their protection, as part of the Government’s will to respect its international commitments.

RYTIS PAULAUSKAS, Permanent Representative of Lithuania to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, thanked all panellists, States and non-governmental organizations that had contributed to this panel. The panel’s aim was not to propose one single model for policies, but rather to share good practices. One thing in common to most statements was the importance of participation, inclusion, non-discrimination, accountability and the rule of law. He underlined the importance of engaging civil society actors and national human rights institutions in the adoption of national policies. He finally stated the importance of international cooperation, including South-South cooperation, technical assistance and capacity building.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC15041E