HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STARTS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON TORTURE AND ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
Meeting Summaries
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst (A/HRC/28/63)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst (A/HRC/28/63/Add.1)
Presentation of Reports
JUAN MÉNDEZ, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said his main report focused on children deprived of their liberty, who, due to their unique physiological and psychological needs, were at a heightened risk of violence and abuse and more vulnerable than adults to be subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Accordingly, higher standards and broader safeguards had to be applied to children, and depriving them of their liberty had to be limited to exceptional cases. Regarding children in conflict with the law, not only life without parole sentences but also life imprisonment and lengthy sentences were grossly disproportionate and therefore cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The imposition of solitary confinement and any form of corporal punishment on children constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or even torture. The lack of vocational, educational and recreational activities for children deprived of their liberty created situations of risk of abuse and ill-treatment. Immigration detention practices across the globe put children at risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The deprivation of liberty of children based on their or their parents’ migration status was not absolutely essential and constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of migrant children. When the child’s best interest required keeping the family together, authorities had to choose alternative measures to detention for the entire family.
States had to adopt child-friendly administrative and criminal court procedures and train staff on children’s vulnerabilities, and particularly those of special groups such as girls, minorities, children with disabilities, and migrant children. Regular and independent monitoring of places where children were deprived of their liberty was key and should be done by an independent body with authority to receive and act on complaints. Turning to his country visit to Mexico, the Special Rapporteur underlined significant progress in relation to the obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment, although such practices remained generalized. On his visit to the Gambia, the Special Rapporteur regretted the Government’s unwillingness to grant freedom of movement and inquiry to all areas of detention facilities. After a follow-up visit to Tajikistan, the Special Rapporteur was pleased to find that considerable efforts had been made but noted that substantial changes still needed to take place to prevent and eliminate torture and mistreatment. After a follow-up visit to Tunisia, he welcomed positive institutional and legal reforms undertaken and urged the Government to continue pursuing serious reforms and breaking the cycle of impunity for serious human rights violations, especially in the context of counter-terrorism operations.
MICHEL FORST, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said that he had just completed a series of regional consultations with almost 350 courageous persons, who had told him stories of threats and attacks, but also of their hopes and expectations regarding fulfilment of his mandate. Mr. Forst said that he had been mandated to be the eyes and ears of the Council, an observer, listener, witness and protector of human rights defenders, which had enabled him to complete the first report being presented now. The Rapporteur stressed that he had decided to dedicate an important part of his time and efforts to the analysis of tendencies and issues which could help him develop new methods to reinforce protection mechanisms. In that context he had launched seven regional consultations across various regions, which should allow him to analyse national and regional trends, evaluate threats against specific groups and evaluate efficiency of regional and national protection measures. Mr. Forst had promised people he had met that he would be their spokesperson and ensured that their concerns and protection needs were heard.
Repression of the human rights of human rights defenders was often accompanied by unjustified repression of the rights to peaceful assembly and association, as well as freedom of expression. For that reason, it was necessary to further work on developing greater synergy with other Special Rapporteurs, with whom a meeting had been held in Paris. Mr. Forst emphasized that he was a firm believer in permanent cooperation and constructive dialogue with Governments, which was why he was concerned about the low rate of implementation of recommendations by United Nations human rights mechanisms. While individual cases would remain a cornerstone of his mandate, Mr. Forst said that he considered it essential to promote and disseminate good practices which could then be reproduced in various countries with the Special Rapporteur’s assistance. During the reporting period, 231 communications had been submitted to 84 States with regard to 530 human rights defenders; the response rate was 55 per cent. All States were urged to provide substantive responses in a timely manner. The Special Rapporteur was extremely concerned about the growing number of acts of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders, which was even more shocking if they took place in States which were members of the Council.
Statements by Concerned Countries
Mexico, speaking as a concerned country, said that the visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture in 2014 was part of Mexico’s policy of openness and cooperation that it maintained with respect to international human rights mechanisms. The commitment to prevent, fight and eradicate torture was one of the Government’s priorities. Mexico identified a series of steps needed to achieve the full eradication of torture. However, the Government could not share the observation of the Special Rapporteur that torture was a general practice in the country because there was no evidence to support such an observation and because it did not reflect the Government’s enormous efforts to strengthen laws and practices, and to foster a culture of respect for human rights. Mexico invited the Special Rapporteur to continue investigating specific torture cases, so that the Mexican Government could secure access to justice to victims of torture, and hold perpetrators accountable. Information was provided to the Special Rapporteur on 95 per cent of cases.
Tajikistan, speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his visit to the country. The Government had recently strengthened its legislation, particularly the criminal code. The code now provided for procedural equality for all parties, and inadmissibility of any evidence gained through torture or other cruel treatment. There was a ban on causing physical or moral suffering, and articles on the inviolability of Islam were removed. All relevant parties were brought together in order to discuss the eradication of torture. A draft programme on judicial reform was looking into guidelines to prevent and investigate torture. The Government was taking measures to ensure independent monitoring procedures and receiving of complaints, and a telephone hotline had been established. The Government noted a generally objective tone of the Special Rapporteur’s report, and reiterated its willingness and commitment to continued cooperation.
Tunisia, speaking as a concerned country, said that just a week ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had reaffirmed Tunisia’s determination to eradicate all forms of torture and mistreatment. Tunisia had taken good note of the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur and would continue to communicate with him and ask for his assistance on the matter.
Interactive Dialogue
European Union appreciated the clear practical focus in Mr. Mendez’s report, and supported greater engagement by the rest of the United Nations system in support of human rights defenders. Proper government oversight and regular, independent monitoring of places where children were deprived of liberty were key to preventing torture and ill-treatment.
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that human rights defenders played an important role in promoting and protecting human rights and should be guaranteed protection regardless of the fact of which universally recognized group right they sought to defend. Member States were urged to adopt child-friendly administrative and criminal court procedures.
Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, agreed that identifying the specific threats faced by human rights defenders would improve States’ response to them. The African Group welcomed that technical assistance would be provided on this issue. On torture, the African Group recognized States’ responsibility to prevent torture and the key role of national human rights institutions in that regard. The African Group also shared the view that States should have a formal obligation to inform a relative about a child deprived of their liberty.
Qatar said that States had an ethical commitment to prevent torture, and Qatar had therefore amended its penal code to include a definition of torture. Qatar had also withdrawn its reservations to the Convention against Torture and was now in full conformity with international human rights standards.
Ireland said the components of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders should be seen as valuable tools in assisting all stakeholders, particularly States, to better support human rights defenders and strengthen their protection on the ground. It asked for elaboration on mechanisms that focused on groups of defenders most at risk, and about concrete examples of preventive mechanisms that could be put in place.
Austria expressed concern about the shrinking space for civil society all over the world, and asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on strengthening the protection of human rights defenders cooperating with United Nations mechanisms. As for torture, Austria asked for examples of national complaint mechanisms for children deprived of their liberty, or good examples for enhancing children’s access to justice.
Norway strongly condemned reprisals against human rights defenders and called on the international community to address them. Norway called on all States to issue a standing invitation and accept requests for a visit by the Special Rapporteur, and said it would like to see more follow-up missions to countries. The fight against torture should be on everyone’s agenda.
Sierra Leone recognized that human rights defenders had an important role to play and their protection had to be guaranteed by both legislation and enforceable mechanisms. Sierra Leone agreed on the need for children to be held in special facilities and the need to exempt them from the death penalty.
Paraguay believed that the Special Rapporteur on torture should receive more support from countries he visited. Paraguay stressed that the issue ought to be understood at the global level and could be addressed only with the engagement of all stakeholders. The problem of children deprived of liberty should keep all States vigilant in order to ensure their dignified treatment.
Poland expressed concern about the increasing trend in some States to cut back the rights of human rights defenders. Shrinking space for civil society organizations was a phenomenon which required concerted actions and should be publicly criticized. Legal, financial and registry restrictions faced by human rights defenders ought to be abolished.
Spain agreed that the unique vulnerability of children in detention warranted specific attention from States. Spain appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s position against the death penalty. On human rights defenders, Spain underlined the need to convert national human rights institutions as allies to follow-up on communications, which would be a good step forward. Spain also agreed that impunity was a key factor for the persistence of violations against human rights defenders.
Denmark echoed the Special Rapporteur’s concerns about reprisals against human rights defenders, and sought his views on how better to prevent them. On torture, Denmark said that children deprived of their liberty indeed constituted a particularly vulnerable group, and called on all States to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
Brazil welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s initiative for the identification of threats faced by human rights defenders. Brazil requested the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on positive steps that States had to take to ensure that human rights defenders did not face threats or other violations of their rights. Brazil underlined also the specific vulnerability of defenders working on economic, social and cultural rights and on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.
Togo said it had appointed a national human rights commission to assume the functions of the national mechanism for the prevention of torture. As for children in conflict with the law, a certain number of measures had been taken with the support of UNICEF and the National Catholic Bureau of Childhood. The Government expressed full readiness to cooperate and put in place recommendations with respect to the right of human rights defenders.
Thailand said it had organized inter-agency meetings and public hearings on the draft law that would criminalize acts of torture and enforced disappearance committed by State officials. As for the protection of human rights defenders, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department was tasked to find a balance between the protection of human rights defenders and freedom of expression, in consultation with civil society.
Latvia welcomed the roadmap to ensure greater protection for human rights defenders worldwide, and to address the challenges they faced on the ground. It strongly supported the intention of the Special Rapporteur to follow up on relevant communications, urgent appeals and visits. It asked what could be done to improve the current communications system and ensure a more relevant and faster response.
Portugal said that the best interest of the child presided over its national public policies, and asked for Mr. Méndez’s opinion on how the entry into force of the Third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child could contribute to addressing children’s vulnerability in articulating complaints. A safer and enabling environment ought to be created to fully protect the rights of human rights defenders.
Republic of Congo, said that during its campaign to be re-elected to the Human Rights Council, it had reiterated its commitment to cooperating with the human rights treaty bodies. Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo had established a joint commission of inquiry into alleged violations during the operation “Mbata ya bakolo”, which should shed light on a wide range of issues.
Burkina Faso stated that human rights defenders had to be able to do their work in full safety and protection. Burkina Faso was a co-sponsor of the Council resolution on the protection of human rights defenders. In 2014, Burkina Faso had adopted a law preventing torture and related practices.
Estonia shared the view that the detention of children brought high risks of violence and ill-treatment against them. On human rights defenders, Estonia said it was crucial to guarantee their right to participate in the fight for democracy, and to ensure that their rights were protected, including online.
Australia attached great importance to its human rights obligations and rejected the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that its migration policy breached the provisions of the Convention against Torture. This policy had the effect of preventing deaths at sea and human rights abuses that arose from people smuggling.
Netherlands supported the Special Rapporteur’s focus on follow-up to cases of human rights defenders raised with his office, and welcomed his engagement in regional consultations. The Netherlands condemned acts of reprisals against human rights defenders, and demanded how the Special Rapporteur would engage with the wider United Nations system on the support and protection of defenders.
Morocco noted that the detention of children and minors should be only applied as the last resort. In Morocco that issue deserved and received full attention. Judges could use sentences of incarceration for minors exceptionally in extreme cases, and only for limited periods of time. Other measures and provisions were also in place to ensure the protection of juvenile delinquents.
Belarus said it was developing a system of child friendly justice, which introduced an individual approach to every child, and a boarding type of institutionalization for child offenders. Belarus shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur about the cruel treatment of child migrants. That subject could be a specific mandate. It asked the Special Rapporteur to provide information about torture in CIA prisons, and actions that could be taken to end it and hold accountable those who perpetrated it.
Slovenia said it was unacceptable that in many regions of the world human rights defenders still faced risks of discrimination, threats, mistreatment and even criminalization. It asked how the international community could ensure the protection of human rights defenders in places where there were no specific national mechanisms and no political will by State authorities.
Republic of Korea agreed that States should ensure that human rights defenders could exercise their functions within a national framework. The overriding duty of States represented a vital cornerstone of an environment that both enabled and encouraged human rights defenders. Independent national human rights institutions could and should be effectively supported by voluntary initiatives from civil society organizations.
Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on Torture
JUAN MÉNDEZ, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, responding to Australia, said that the appendix to his report included some 200 cases. His worry regarding Australia was limited to the question of non-refoulement, but prolonged detention of asylum seekers was also a matter of concern. Regarding Congo, massive deportations, performed without a possibility of challenge, presented a concern from a human rights perspective. On Mexico, Mr. Méndez said that testimonies had been received from people in prisons and those just released. State and municipal forces were reported to be using similarly high levels of torture, which was why the term “generalized torture” was used. It was, nonetheless, recognized that Mexico was making a concerted effort to improve the situation, but much was left to be desired.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC15/023E
The Human Rights Council this afternoon began a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan Méndez, and with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst.
Juan Méndez, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, focused on children deprived of their liberty and said that higher standards and broader safeguards had to be applied to them. He underlined that life without parole and life imprisonment sentences, solitary confinement and corporal punishment on children constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or even torture. He also expressed a series of concerns regarding the detention of migrant children.
Michel Forst, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said that he had decided to dedicate an important part of his time and efforts to the analysis of tendencies and issues which could help him develop new methods to reinforce protection mechanisms for human rights defenders. He expressed the necessity to further collaborate with other Special Rapporteurs, and to constructively cooperate with Governments, although individual cases would remain a cornerstone of his mandate.
During the dialogue, speakers welcomed that the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had focused his report on children deprived of their liberty, and stressed the primary responsibility of States to prevent and punish torture. Speakers underlined the specific vulnerability of children deprived of their liberty, and agreed that States had to make additional efforts to prevent abuses against them. Speakers regretted that the report of the Special Rapporteur had been made available very late, which did not leave much time for them to prepare for this dialogue.
Speakers recognized that human rights defenders had an important role to play and their protection had to be guaranteed by both legislation and enforceable mechanisms. They welcomed the initiative by the Special Rapporteur to identify threats against them in order to propose a better response to prevent them. Speakers also expressed deep concerns about acts of reprisals, and underlined the specific vulnerability of human rights defenders working on economic and environmental issues, as well as human rights defenders working on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.
Mexico, Tajikistan and Tunisia spoke as concerned countries.
Speaking during the interactive dialogue were the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, Algeria on behalf of the African Group, Qatar, Ireland, Austria, Norway, Sierra Leone, Paraguay, Poland, Spain, Denmark, Brazil, Togo, Thailand, Latvia, Portugal, Republic of Congo, Burkina Faso, Estonia, Australia, the Netherlands, Morocco, Belarus, Slovenia and the Republic of Korea.
The Human Rights Council will hold a full-day meeting on Tuesday, 10 March. It will first continue its clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on torture and on human rights defenders at 9 a.m., before holding a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the rights of persons with disabilities and on freedom of religion or belief. In the afternoon, the Council will hold its annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities.
Documentation
| The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, Juan Ernesto Mendez (A/HRC/28/68) The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, Juan Ernesto Mendez - Observations on communications (A/HRC/28/68/Add.1) The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, Juan Ernesto Mendez - Follow-up report: Mission to Tajikistan and Tunisia (A/HRC/28/68/Add.2 The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, Juan Ernesto Mendez - Mission to Mexico (A/HRC/28/68/Add.3) The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, Juan Ernesto Mendez - Mission to Gambia (A/HRC/28/68/Add.4) |  |
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst (A/HRC/28/63/Add.1)
Presentation of Reports
JUAN MÉNDEZ, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said his main report focused on children deprived of their liberty, who, due to their unique physiological and psychological needs, were at a heightened risk of violence and abuse and more vulnerable than adults to be subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Accordingly, higher standards and broader safeguards had to be applied to children, and depriving them of their liberty had to be limited to exceptional cases. Regarding children in conflict with the law, not only life without parole sentences but also life imprisonment and lengthy sentences were grossly disproportionate and therefore cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The imposition of solitary confinement and any form of corporal punishment on children constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or even torture. The lack of vocational, educational and recreational activities for children deprived of their liberty created situations of risk of abuse and ill-treatment. Immigration detention practices across the globe put children at risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The deprivation of liberty of children based on their or their parents’ migration status was not absolutely essential and constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of migrant children. When the child’s best interest required keeping the family together, authorities had to choose alternative measures to detention for the entire family.
States had to adopt child-friendly administrative and criminal court procedures and train staff on children’s vulnerabilities, and particularly those of special groups such as girls, minorities, children with disabilities, and migrant children. Regular and independent monitoring of places where children were deprived of their liberty was key and should be done by an independent body with authority to receive and act on complaints. Turning to his country visit to Mexico, the Special Rapporteur underlined significant progress in relation to the obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment, although such practices remained generalized. On his visit to the Gambia, the Special Rapporteur regretted the Government’s unwillingness to grant freedom of movement and inquiry to all areas of detention facilities. After a follow-up visit to Tajikistan, the Special Rapporteur was pleased to find that considerable efforts had been made but noted that substantial changes still needed to take place to prevent and eliminate torture and mistreatment. After a follow-up visit to Tunisia, he welcomed positive institutional and legal reforms undertaken and urged the Government to continue pursuing serious reforms and breaking the cycle of impunity for serious human rights violations, especially in the context of counter-terrorism operations.
MICHEL FORST, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said that he had just completed a series of regional consultations with almost 350 courageous persons, who had told him stories of threats and attacks, but also of their hopes and expectations regarding fulfilment of his mandate. Mr. Forst said that he had been mandated to be the eyes and ears of the Council, an observer, listener, witness and protector of human rights defenders, which had enabled him to complete the first report being presented now. The Rapporteur stressed that he had decided to dedicate an important part of his time and efforts to the analysis of tendencies and issues which could help him develop new methods to reinforce protection mechanisms. In that context he had launched seven regional consultations across various regions, which should allow him to analyse national and regional trends, evaluate threats against specific groups and evaluate efficiency of regional and national protection measures. Mr. Forst had promised people he had met that he would be their spokesperson and ensured that their concerns and protection needs were heard.
Repression of the human rights of human rights defenders was often accompanied by unjustified repression of the rights to peaceful assembly and association, as well as freedom of expression. For that reason, it was necessary to further work on developing greater synergy with other Special Rapporteurs, with whom a meeting had been held in Paris. Mr. Forst emphasized that he was a firm believer in permanent cooperation and constructive dialogue with Governments, which was why he was concerned about the low rate of implementation of recommendations by United Nations human rights mechanisms. While individual cases would remain a cornerstone of his mandate, Mr. Forst said that he considered it essential to promote and disseminate good practices which could then be reproduced in various countries with the Special Rapporteur’s assistance. During the reporting period, 231 communications had been submitted to 84 States with regard to 530 human rights defenders; the response rate was 55 per cent. All States were urged to provide substantive responses in a timely manner. The Special Rapporteur was extremely concerned about the growing number of acts of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders, which was even more shocking if they took place in States which were members of the Council.
Statements by Concerned Countries
Mexico, speaking as a concerned country, said that the visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture in 2014 was part of Mexico’s policy of openness and cooperation that it maintained with respect to international human rights mechanisms. The commitment to prevent, fight and eradicate torture was one of the Government’s priorities. Mexico identified a series of steps needed to achieve the full eradication of torture. However, the Government could not share the observation of the Special Rapporteur that torture was a general practice in the country because there was no evidence to support such an observation and because it did not reflect the Government’s enormous efforts to strengthen laws and practices, and to foster a culture of respect for human rights. Mexico invited the Special Rapporteur to continue investigating specific torture cases, so that the Mexican Government could secure access to justice to victims of torture, and hold perpetrators accountable. Information was provided to the Special Rapporteur on 95 per cent of cases.
Tajikistan, speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his visit to the country. The Government had recently strengthened its legislation, particularly the criminal code. The code now provided for procedural equality for all parties, and inadmissibility of any evidence gained through torture or other cruel treatment. There was a ban on causing physical or moral suffering, and articles on the inviolability of Islam were removed. All relevant parties were brought together in order to discuss the eradication of torture. A draft programme on judicial reform was looking into guidelines to prevent and investigate torture. The Government was taking measures to ensure independent monitoring procedures and receiving of complaints, and a telephone hotline had been established. The Government noted a generally objective tone of the Special Rapporteur’s report, and reiterated its willingness and commitment to continued cooperation.
Tunisia, speaking as a concerned country, said that just a week ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had reaffirmed Tunisia’s determination to eradicate all forms of torture and mistreatment. Tunisia had taken good note of the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur and would continue to communicate with him and ask for his assistance on the matter.
Interactive Dialogue
European Union appreciated the clear practical focus in Mr. Mendez’s report, and supported greater engagement by the rest of the United Nations system in support of human rights defenders. Proper government oversight and regular, independent monitoring of places where children were deprived of liberty were key to preventing torture and ill-treatment.
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that human rights defenders played an important role in promoting and protecting human rights and should be guaranteed protection regardless of the fact of which universally recognized group right they sought to defend. Member States were urged to adopt child-friendly administrative and criminal court procedures.
Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, agreed that identifying the specific threats faced by human rights defenders would improve States’ response to them. The African Group welcomed that technical assistance would be provided on this issue. On torture, the African Group recognized States’ responsibility to prevent torture and the key role of national human rights institutions in that regard. The African Group also shared the view that States should have a formal obligation to inform a relative about a child deprived of their liberty.
Qatar said that States had an ethical commitment to prevent torture, and Qatar had therefore amended its penal code to include a definition of torture. Qatar had also withdrawn its reservations to the Convention against Torture and was now in full conformity with international human rights standards.
Ireland said the components of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders should be seen as valuable tools in assisting all stakeholders, particularly States, to better support human rights defenders and strengthen their protection on the ground. It asked for elaboration on mechanisms that focused on groups of defenders most at risk, and about concrete examples of preventive mechanisms that could be put in place.
Austria expressed concern about the shrinking space for civil society all over the world, and asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on strengthening the protection of human rights defenders cooperating with United Nations mechanisms. As for torture, Austria asked for examples of national complaint mechanisms for children deprived of their liberty, or good examples for enhancing children’s access to justice.
Norway strongly condemned reprisals against human rights defenders and called on the international community to address them. Norway called on all States to issue a standing invitation and accept requests for a visit by the Special Rapporteur, and said it would like to see more follow-up missions to countries. The fight against torture should be on everyone’s agenda.
Sierra Leone recognized that human rights defenders had an important role to play and their protection had to be guaranteed by both legislation and enforceable mechanisms. Sierra Leone agreed on the need for children to be held in special facilities and the need to exempt them from the death penalty.
Paraguay believed that the Special Rapporteur on torture should receive more support from countries he visited. Paraguay stressed that the issue ought to be understood at the global level and could be addressed only with the engagement of all stakeholders. The problem of children deprived of liberty should keep all States vigilant in order to ensure their dignified treatment.
Poland expressed concern about the increasing trend in some States to cut back the rights of human rights defenders. Shrinking space for civil society organizations was a phenomenon which required concerted actions and should be publicly criticized. Legal, financial and registry restrictions faced by human rights defenders ought to be abolished.
Spain agreed that the unique vulnerability of children in detention warranted specific attention from States. Spain appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s position against the death penalty. On human rights defenders, Spain underlined the need to convert national human rights institutions as allies to follow-up on communications, which would be a good step forward. Spain also agreed that impunity was a key factor for the persistence of violations against human rights defenders.
Denmark echoed the Special Rapporteur’s concerns about reprisals against human rights defenders, and sought his views on how better to prevent them. On torture, Denmark said that children deprived of their liberty indeed constituted a particularly vulnerable group, and called on all States to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
Brazil welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s initiative for the identification of threats faced by human rights defenders. Brazil requested the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on positive steps that States had to take to ensure that human rights defenders did not face threats or other violations of their rights. Brazil underlined also the specific vulnerability of defenders working on economic, social and cultural rights and on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.
Togo said it had appointed a national human rights commission to assume the functions of the national mechanism for the prevention of torture. As for children in conflict with the law, a certain number of measures had been taken with the support of UNICEF and the National Catholic Bureau of Childhood. The Government expressed full readiness to cooperate and put in place recommendations with respect to the right of human rights defenders.
Thailand said it had organized inter-agency meetings and public hearings on the draft law that would criminalize acts of torture and enforced disappearance committed by State officials. As for the protection of human rights defenders, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department was tasked to find a balance between the protection of human rights defenders and freedom of expression, in consultation with civil society.
Latvia welcomed the roadmap to ensure greater protection for human rights defenders worldwide, and to address the challenges they faced on the ground. It strongly supported the intention of the Special Rapporteur to follow up on relevant communications, urgent appeals and visits. It asked what could be done to improve the current communications system and ensure a more relevant and faster response.
Portugal said that the best interest of the child presided over its national public policies, and asked for Mr. Méndez’s opinion on how the entry into force of the Third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child could contribute to addressing children’s vulnerability in articulating complaints. A safer and enabling environment ought to be created to fully protect the rights of human rights defenders.
Republic of Congo, said that during its campaign to be re-elected to the Human Rights Council, it had reiterated its commitment to cooperating with the human rights treaty bodies. Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo had established a joint commission of inquiry into alleged violations during the operation “Mbata ya bakolo”, which should shed light on a wide range of issues.
Burkina Faso stated that human rights defenders had to be able to do their work in full safety and protection. Burkina Faso was a co-sponsor of the Council resolution on the protection of human rights defenders. In 2014, Burkina Faso had adopted a law preventing torture and related practices.
Estonia shared the view that the detention of children brought high risks of violence and ill-treatment against them. On human rights defenders, Estonia said it was crucial to guarantee their right to participate in the fight for democracy, and to ensure that their rights were protected, including online.
Australia attached great importance to its human rights obligations and rejected the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that its migration policy breached the provisions of the Convention against Torture. This policy had the effect of preventing deaths at sea and human rights abuses that arose from people smuggling.
Netherlands supported the Special Rapporteur’s focus on follow-up to cases of human rights defenders raised with his office, and welcomed his engagement in regional consultations. The Netherlands condemned acts of reprisals against human rights defenders, and demanded how the Special Rapporteur would engage with the wider United Nations system on the support and protection of defenders.
Morocco noted that the detention of children and minors should be only applied as the last resort. In Morocco that issue deserved and received full attention. Judges could use sentences of incarceration for minors exceptionally in extreme cases, and only for limited periods of time. Other measures and provisions were also in place to ensure the protection of juvenile delinquents.
Belarus said it was developing a system of child friendly justice, which introduced an individual approach to every child, and a boarding type of institutionalization for child offenders. Belarus shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur about the cruel treatment of child migrants. That subject could be a specific mandate. It asked the Special Rapporteur to provide information about torture in CIA prisons, and actions that could be taken to end it and hold accountable those who perpetrated it.
Slovenia said it was unacceptable that in many regions of the world human rights defenders still faced risks of discrimination, threats, mistreatment and even criminalization. It asked how the international community could ensure the protection of human rights defenders in places where there were no specific national mechanisms and no political will by State authorities.
Republic of Korea agreed that States should ensure that human rights defenders could exercise their functions within a national framework. The overriding duty of States represented a vital cornerstone of an environment that both enabled and encouraged human rights defenders. Independent national human rights institutions could and should be effectively supported by voluntary initiatives from civil society organizations.
Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on Torture
JUAN MÉNDEZ, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, responding to Australia, said that the appendix to his report included some 200 cases. His worry regarding Australia was limited to the question of non-refoulement, but prolonged detention of asylum seekers was also a matter of concern. Regarding Congo, massive deportations, performed without a possibility of challenge, presented a concern from a human rights perspective. On Mexico, Mr. Méndez said that testimonies had been received from people in prisons and those just released. State and municipal forces were reported to be using similarly high levels of torture, which was why the term “generalized torture” was used. It was, nonetheless, recognized that Mexico was making a concerted effort to improve the situation, but much was left to be desired.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC15/023E