HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS SEPARATE INTERACTIVE DIALOGUES WITH SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN AND IN MYANMAR
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held separate interactive dialogues with Ahmed Shaheed, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, and with Yanghee Lee, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
In his presentation, Mr. Shaheed identified some positive developments in Iran, such as steps to amend some provisions of the penal and criminal procedure codes to comply with international standards, but noted that provisions that compromised or weakened due process and fair trial guarantees remained. There had been an alarming surge in the rate of unlawful executions and ongoing arbitrary arrests, detention and prosecution of individuals for the exercise of their fundamental rights. The report also highlighted ongoing challenges facing religious and ethnic minorities, and Mr. Shaheed urged the authorities to recognize that freedom of religion entailed the freedom to choose a religion or belief, and that measures that imposed a faith violated international law.
Iran, speaking as the concerned country, said that achieving the lofty goals of human rights required respect for cultural diversity, divine religions, values and nations’ traditions and also refraining from imposing approaches and lifestyles on others. The appointment of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran was the result on an unfair, selective and political process, and Iran requested that the Council end the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
During the interactive dialogue, speakers expressed deep concern about the situation of human rights defenders in Iran. The continuing persecution of ethnic and religious minorities was deplored, and countries also paid special attention to the use of the death penalty in the country, thereunder the application of the death penalty to juveniles. Some speakers questioned the practice of country-specific mandates, cautioning against the politicization of human rights mechanisms.
Speaking were European Union, Canada, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Syria, Denmark, Russian Federation, Venezuela, Germany, Tajikistan, Belgium, Japan, United States, Spain China, Belarus, France, Cuba, Israel, United Kingdom, Iraq, and Switzerland.
The following civil society organizations also took the floor: Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism, Verein Südwind Entwicklungspolitik, Imam Ali’s Popular Students Relief Society, Bahá’í International Community, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, Charitable Foundation for Protecting Social Victims, Allied Rainbow Communities International, Prevention Association of Social Harms, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, and Child Foundation.
In her presentation, Ms. Lee said that 8 November 2015 would be remembered as a watershed moment in the history of Myanmar, the day when the elections had been held in which the people of Myanmar had strongly expressed their voice for democracy. But there was still a long way to go, and a number of challenges remained, among them the military being guaranteed 25 per cent of seats in both houses of the Parliament and the state and regional legislature and controlling three key Ministries. On the situation in Rakhine State, she encouraged the Government to take steps towards the criminalization of incitement to hatred. The continuing conflict in Myanmar was another source of concern. Ms. Lee’s report included eight concrete recommendations for actions for the first 100 days of the new administration.
Myanmar, speaking as the concerned country, said that today, a new political culture had forged peaceful national reconciliation, and armed conflict was being resolved through political means. Progress noted by the international community was listed in detail, as were concerns listed by the Special Rapporteur in her report. The current moment was a very opportune one for the Council to review its agenda vis-à-vis Myanmar.
During the interactive dialogue, speakers welcomed Myanmar’s commitment to enhance socio-economic development, improve the livelihoods of the people, promote good governance and democratic practices, strengthen the promotion of human rights and achieve peace, national unity, reconsolidation and reconciliation, while expressing particular concern about the situation in Rakhine State as well as the continued military influence over the Parliament and abuses and discrimination against minorities, including the Rohingya. Some speakers said the report contained certain imbalances and reiterated that the Council should not use country specific mandates against the countries of the South.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on Myanmar were European Union, Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Viet Nam on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Venezuela, Czech Republic, Estonia, Japan, Belgium, Croatia, United States, Netherlands, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Turkey, Australia, Viet Nam, Sudan, Ireland, Philippines, Denmark, France, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Cuba, Albania, Thailand, Norway, Russian Federation, Cambodia, Spain, Ghana, New Zealand, and United Kingdom.
The following civil society organizations also took the floor: Jubilee Campaign, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Human Rights Now, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, International Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Educational Department, Inc..
The Council will next meet on Tuesday, 15 March, at 9 a.m., to hold an interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria before hearing a report of the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as well as an oral update on Eritrea, followed by a general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention.
Documentation
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/31/69).
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran
Presentation of Report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran
AHMED SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, referred to the recent elections in Iran, which had reflected the population’s support for policies addressing economic issues, promoting increased engagement with the international community, and improving human rights protection. The new Parliament was confronted with economic and human rights challenges, amid opportunities presented by the lifting of economic sanctions. Positive steps had been taken by the Government, including steps to amend some provisions of the penal and criminal procedure codes to comply with international standards, as well as a commitment to re-examine laws that had contributed to a staggering execution rate in the country. These steps should be applauded, and every effort had to be made to ensure that they translated into real change on the ground and an end to continuing serious human rights abuses. Indeed, the Special Rapporteur pointed at the alarming surge in the rate of unlawful executions and ongoing arbitrary arrests, detention and prosecution of individuals for the exercise of their fundamental rights. At least 966 persons had been executed in 2015, and at least 73 juvenile offenders were reportedly executed between 2005 and 2015, including 16 in the past two years. Moreover, at least 47 journalists and social media activists were reportedly being detained, and over 272 internet café businesses had been closed in 2015 for their alleged “threat to societal norms and values”.
The report also highlighted ongoing challenges facing religious and ethnic minorities, with continuing persecution of Iranian Christians and continued restrictions of the right of Baha’is to openly manifest their beliefs, educate their children and earn a living. The Special Rapporteur had also continued to receive reports of arbitrary killings of border couriers engaged in smuggling items. Mr. Shaheed urged the authorities to recognize that freedom of religion entailed the freedom to choose a religion or belief, and that measures that imposed a faith violated international law. The troubling state of human rights in the country today was due to inadequate legal protection and a failure to implement laws that satisfied Iran’s international obligations. The urgent need for fundamental reforms of the criminal justice system could not be overstated. Indeed, despite positive recent amendments made to the criminal procedure code, provisions that compromised or weakened due process and fair trial guarantees remained. Further, the amendment that allowed judges to assess the mental capacity of juvenile offenders remained sometimes not implemented. He called on the Government to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18 years without discriminating between boys and girls. In conclusion, Mr. Shaheed highlighted the increasing cooperation extended to his mandate by the Government of Iran, and reiterated his call on the Government to grant him access to the country.
Statement by the Concerned Country
Iran, speaking as the concerned country, noted that its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights was rooted in the principles, values and rich history of Iran. Its human rights policy was always based on interaction and cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights, as opposed to confrontation, politicization and double standards. Iran constructively engaged with Universal Periodic Review mechanisms and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as with other institutions of the United Nations human rights system. Iran believed that achieving the lofty goals of human rights required respect for cultural diversity, divine religions, values and nations’ traditions and also refraining from imposing approaches and lifestyles on others. The appointment of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran was the result on an unfair, selective and political process and it was completely at odds with the principles of independence, impartiality and professionalism. The Special Rapporteur in his report reflected only a small part of the progress of human rights in Iran; the report contained imbalanced and biased language, and it presented a distorted and unrealistic image of the situation in the country. Iran requested that the Council end the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
Interactive Dialogue
European Union spoke about executions in Iran, noted the crackdown on freedom of expression and opinion, and expressed serious concern at the situation of religious minorities. The Rapporteur was asked to expand on his views on the situation of human rights defenders in Iran. Canada took note of recent efforts in a few areas, but remained deeply troubled by the high number of executions and the disregard for standards of due process of law and arbitrary detention, among other issues. The Rapporteur was asked how access to Iran would contribute to his ability to fulfil his mandate. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia expressed concern about the worsening situation as regards the application of the death penalty, in particular the execution of juveniles. The Government of Iran was urged to improve its cooperation with all Special Procedures of the United Nations.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that country-specific mandates initiated and pursued by the Western countries aimed at interfering in the internal affairs of countries that were not obedient to them. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was the only appropriate forum for discussing country-specific mandates. Norway said the situation of human rights defenders in Iran was worrying. Norway encouraged the Government of Iran to strive for increased female participation in the economy and politics. The Special Rapporteur was asked for his recommendations for supporting human rights defenders operating under difficult circumstances in Iran. Australia said the situation for human rights defenders in Iran was “dire”, noted the mistreatment of ethnic and religious minorities, and that women remained subject to discrimination in law and practice. The Special Rapporteur’s comments were welcomed on how the international community could best engage Iran on a number of human rights issues.
New Zealand welcomed Iran’s increased engagement with the international community, but deplored the continuing persecution of ethnic and religious minorities in Iran. New Zealand also remained deeply concerned at the high and increasing rate of executions in Iran, and in particular about the large number of juveniles facing the death penalty. Syria reiterated its principled position against using human rights as a pretext to interfere with the sovereignty of a country. The Iranian elections had been democratic, and it was regrettable that countries like Iran were being targeted in the Council as part of a selective and politicized approach, while the human rights situation in other countries was overlooked. Denmark remained concerned about the extraordinary high number of executions in Iran, including against juvenile offenders and for drug-related crimes. The continued discrimination against women, girls and persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities remained of concern. Russian Federation regretted the politicized and unconstructive approach by the Special Rapporteur, as illustrated by his decision to completely ignore the situation of economic, social and cultural rights there. The Russian Federation said that the defaming States with their political motives undermined the credibility of the Council.
Venezuela reiterated its preference for dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights in Iran, and rejected the imposition of country-specific mandates, which seriously undermined the credibility of the United Nations. Iran had engaged constructively with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, and had accepted and implemented many recommendations. Germany agreed that the human rights situation in Iran remained critical, with continuing restrictions on freedom of expression, and non-transparent vetting processes. Executions continued to take place at an alarming rate, including against juvenile offenders, in clear violation of Iran’s international obligations. Germany also reminded Iran of its obligation to protect the rights of minorities and detainees and to ensure the right to a fair trial.
Tajikistan welcomed the constructive cooperation, interaction and openness shown by the Government of Iran while fulfilling its international obligations. It noted Iran’s readiness to comply with the international legal framework based on the principles of cooperation and effective dialogue. It noted that the use of country specific mandates was a one-sided approach that did not contribute to human rights development. Belgium shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur about retaining the death penalty for juveniles in the Penal Code in Iran and mandating the death penalty in the Anti-Narcotics Law for a range of drug crimes, including offences that did not amount to the most serious crimes under international law. It also voiced concern over the systematic discrimination of Baha’is. Japan noted the progress in addressing the human rights situation by President Hassan Rohani’s administration and it expected that the progress would be reflected in the Special Rapporteur’s report. Japan expected further building of trust between Iran and the rest of the international community, Iran’s further cooperation with the United Nations, and the realization of a visit to Iran by the Special Rapporteur.
United States highlighted widespread torture, political imprisonment, lack of fair trial guarantees, harassment of ethnic and religious minorities, and severe restrictions on freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. Iran’s continued execution of individuals for crimes allegedly committed as juveniles and prolonged detention for the exercise of their human rights and fundamental freedoms was unacceptable. Spain shared the recognition of the Special Rapporteur that Iran had made progress in its engagement with some of the Special Procedures, but added that it would like to see Iran extend cooperation with all Special Procedures. It should also improve the situation of religious minorities. Spain urged that a moratorium on the death penalty be immediately established. China advocated cooperation and dialogue as an effective way to promote human rights, noting that externally imposed mechanisms did not promote human rights. It expressed hope that the international community would objectively look at the human rights situation in Iran, respecting its religious values. Belarus welcomed the consistent approach taken by Iran to implement the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review. A constructive and non-politicised dialogue, based on the principles of objectivity and impartiality, was the only way to promote human rights. There was no basis for the further extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. France called on Iran to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur, noting that the expectations of the civil society in Iran were high. The use of the death penalty in Iran, especially on minors, was alarming, as well as severe sentences for drug related crimes. The situation regarding political and civil freedoms also remained concerning.
Cuba denounced the selective and politically motivated approach of the Special Rapporteur, and did not support the renewal of his mandate. Selective mandates against nations of the South were contrary to their self-determination, undermined the credibility of the Council, and repeated the problems of its predecessor. The Universal Periodic Review was the mechanism through which the human rights situation in each country had to be discussed. Israel deplored that the Iranian regime continued to violate the basic rights of its people, and had executed the high number of 966 persons last year, including juvenile offenders. Women and religious minorities continued to be discriminated against. The Council should continue exposing the severe violations in Iran. United Kingdom urged Council Members to support the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, and expressed concern about the Special Rapporteur’s findings, particularly regarding the application of the death penalty, including against juvenile offenders and political opponents. It also remained deeply concerned about the violations of the rights of religious minorities in Iran, and restrictions on freedom of expression there. Iraq supported calls to put an end to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and noted that Iran respected all its international commitments. Iraq commended the recent elections that had taken place in Iran. Switzerland expressed concerns about the application of the death penalty in ways that contradicted international law. It also expressed concerns over the situation of Baha’is.
Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism invited the Special Rapporteur to address the need for providing legal assistance. It was suggested that the Rapporteur consider adopting policies to make sure terrorist organizations were denied access to donations and assistance programmes and political asylum. Sudwind said the election system of Iran was consistent with corruption and far from free and fair, and gave details of the functioning of the Guardian Council. Prisoners of conscience had been pressured to give public confessions claiming the reports of the Rapporteur were fabricated and false. Imam Ali’s Popular Students Relief Society spoke about the idealistic motivations of non-governmental organizations, which were heard to a greater extent nowadays by governments, and added that Afghan children now had the right to study in official schools regardless of having identity documents. The organization was opposed to capital punishment for minors.
Bahá’í International Community said that businesses belonging to that religious community had faced difficulties for closing on Bahá’í holidays, which was part of a system of discrimination. The Special Rapporteur was asked to explain how Bahá’í could be said to be treated as full-fledged citizens as his report stated. International Federation for Human Rights Leagues said that around 1,000 prisoners of conscience in Iran were behind bars, and that scores of followers of minority religions or beliefs were detained. Women were discriminated against, and the year 2014 had witnessed at least 743 executions, of which 53 had been carried out in public. Charitable Foundation for Protecting Social Victims said that Iran was situated along a main transit route of drug producers, and expressed regret that organized drug crimes were not deemed serious in Dr. Shaheed’s report. He and the Human Rights Council were urged to consult the civil, religious and legislative bodies in Iran.
Allied Rainbow Communities International noted that Iran’s reform of the Criminal Code had left untouched the penalization of all forms of intimacy between people of the same sex. Such forms of intimacy were severely punished, with the ultimate punishment being the death penalty. There was a connection between the legislation which kept women in place of subordination and the legislation which targeted and controlled lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. Prevention Association of Social Harms highlighted the fact that the Special Rapporteur’s report had noted progress in the human rights situation in Iran, notably the recent parliamentary elections and countless efforts of civil society organizations to improve the situation of people in need. The Special Rapporteur had noted that it had been the most positive development since 2011.
Organization for Defending Victims of Violence noted that women in Iran had a striving presence in civil society, whereas their participation in political life had been increasing. There was a lack of attention to the position of women in the Special Rapporteur’s report. Nevertheless, women’s participation in public and political life still had to be improved. Child Foundation noted that the international sanctions on Iran should be classified as violations of human rights. Due to them, education and food could not be dispensed properly, and particularly to children. Sanctions should be targeted and limited to military items. It proposed that governments adopt a law prohibiting the imposition of untargeted sanctions.
Concluding Remarks
Iran, speaking as the concerned country, noted that its approach to human rights was a comprehensive one. Great importance was paid to economic, social and cultural rights, in addition to civil and political rights. Unfortunately, this was not reflected in the Special Rapporteur’s report. Iran had always been a country that respected its international human rights obligations. It had been engaged in human rights dialogue with more than 10 countries in order to exchange experiences and good practices. The Iranian society was rich in civilizational experience and it was ready to share that experience with others.
AHMED SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, in concluding remarks, noted that there was a wide range of political opinions in Iran, with some committed to democracy while others having a more conservative approach. His mandate had served to raise attention on key human rights concerns, to empower civil society and human rights defenders, and to push for accountability. When the mandate was adopted in 2011, Iran’s cooperation with international human rights mechanisms was very low. Since the publication of reports by the Special Rapporteur, this cooperation seemed to have improved. Engagement with the Special Rapporteur had also positively evolved. A number of fundamental human rights concerns remained. Some laws were in violation of international human rights law, while those laws that were compliant with international standards were not being implemented. Mr. Shaheed reiterated his concerns regarding the rate of executions and the repression of journalists and activists. Bar associations continued to be under pressure. The moratorium on the practice of stoning showed that it was possible to go beyond traditional cultural practices. The rhetoric against minorities had intensified and change did not seem likely in that area. Iran had one of the lowest rates of women’s participation in public life, while women’s literacy rate was rather high. Such contradictions showed that progress was possible. The international community should continue to pay due attention to the situation in Iran. Iran had to be encouraged and supported in addressing the gaps between legislation and its implementation.
Documentation
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (A/HRC/31/71).
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar - Observations by Myanmar on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (A/HRC/31/71/Add.1).
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
Presentation of Report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
YANGHEE LEE, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, stated that 8 November 2015 would be remembered as a watershed moment in the history of the country, the day when the elections had been held in which the people of Myanmar had strongly expressed their voice for democracy. More than 100 former political prisoners were now sitting in the Parliament, including Daw Aung Sang Suu Kyi. There was still a long way to go, and a number of challenges remained. The Constitution continued to grant the military 25 per cent of seats in both houses of the Parliament and the state and regional legislature, which gave them an effective veto on constitutional changes. The military also controlled three key Ministries. Hundreds of laws remaining on the books did not comply with Myanmar’s human rights obligations. While legislative reform was absolutely needed, it should not be rushed, and laws had to meet the needs of the people. Particularly problematic legislation should be prioritized.
Ms. Lee said that concrete actions had to be taken rapidly to address the structural dimensions that led to the serious human rights concerns on the ground in Rakhine State. Life was extremely difficult and included many restrictions for Rohingya Muslims living in Rakhine. Turning around that situation would be a significant challenge for the new Government and might not be popular, but action had to be taken and the international community could provide support. One key priority was the lift of restrictions on freedom of movement. How could communities recreate bonds if they continued to be segregated? The Government was encouraged to take steps towards the criminalization of incitement to hatred which crossed a clearly defined multi-step threshold. The continuing conflict in Myanmar was another source of concern, as seven groups had not signed the Ceasefire Agreement and three groups had been excluded from the process altogether. Hundreds of thousands of people had been forced to flee their homes, and there was a need to facilitate voluntary returns in areas where fighting had ended.
There was a deep skepticism for many, born from historical experiences. The new Government had the opportunity to discuss issues that had prevented some groups from joining the peace process and to tackle the skepticism felt by some on the ground. Human rights had to be placed at the heart of such discussions. Myanmar would highly benefit from a fully-fledged office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ms. Lee concluded by stressing that progress in some areas would take time, but in others quick actions could and should be taken. Her report included eight concrete recommendations for actions for the first 100 days of the new administration.
Statement by the Concerned Country
Myanmar, speaking as the concerned country, said that while all human rights were universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, their realisation had to be considered in the regional and national context, bearing in mind different political, economic, legal, social, cultural, historical and religious backgrounds. Today, a new political culture in Myanmar had forged peaceful national reconciliation, and armed conflict was being resolved through political means. Progress noted by the international community was listed in detail, as were concerns listed by the Special Rapporteur in her report. Individuals she had expressed concerns about were not political in nature. Allegations that human rights defenders and other civil society actors calling for interfaith harmony were threatened and harassed were based on generalizations. New laws were not contrary to treaty and international obligations. It was false information that couples in northern Rakhine State needed permission to marry and were limited to two children. Myanmar today more than ever deserved cooperation and support from the international community in its nation-building task, and the current moment was a very opportune one for the Council to review its agenda vis-à-vis Myanmar.
Interactive Dialogue
European Union welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation for the outgoing Government of Myanmar to unconditionally release all political prisoners, and it looked forward to the full support of the incoming Government for the mandate and towards the implementation of the recommendations concerning the rule of law, democratic space, incitement and discrimination, Rakhine state, gender equality and women’s rights, conflict-related human rights concerns, and economic, social and cultural rights. Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, supported the recommendation for the Government of Myanmar to stop discrimination against the Rakhine Muslims, who were still fully deprived of their fundamental rights and were subject to persecution. It invited the international community, the Human Rights Council and the Security Council to find a rapid solution to that situation. Viet Nam, on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, welcomed Myanmar’s commitment to enhance socio-economic development, improve the livelihoods of the people, promote good governance and democratic practices, strengthen the promotion of human rights, and achieve peace, national unity, reconsolidation and reconciliation.
Venezuela recognized the efforts made by Myanmar to achieve sustainable peace and political dialogue in order to achieve national reconciliation, and the changes in the national legislation in line with its international obligations. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur’s report contained certain imbalances that were not accepted by the concerned country. It reiterated that the Council should not use country specific mandates against the countries of the South. Czech Republic welcomed the continued positive developments in Myanmar towards democratization and national reconciliation, and expressed readiness to support the new Government in its efforts to further the initiated reforms aimed at promoting and protecting human rights. It encouraged the Government to prevent new arbitrary arrests and prosecution of civil society actors, journalists, students and human rights defenders. Estonia encouraged the new Government to continue legislative and constitutional reforms and in that respect it supported the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations to include marital rape to the definition of the crime of rape, and to fight against domestic violence, especially against women and girls. It also urged the Government to guarantee freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
Japan welcomed the fact that the general elections were conducted in a free and fair manner, and commended the Government’s signing of a ceasefire with armed groups and its release of political prisoners. It was important that human rights progress included all groups of people, and Japan encouraged the current and future Governments to address the needs of vulnerable groups. Belgium supported the new Government in its efforts to address remaining challenges, including releasing political prisoners who were still detained. It encouraged Myanmar to continue its work to ensure a free and open public space for civil society, to put an end to restrictions to freedom of expression, and to address the situation in Rakhine State. Belgium also encouraged efforts to tackle gender-based violence. Croatia counted on the new Government to make change in Myanmar a reality, and encouraged further efforts to address human rights violations in Rakhine State. Croatia regretted that women remained excluded from the peace negotiations, and asked what could be done to remedy this situation.
United States welcomed that the Government had taken key steps in the right direction. It remained concerned about the continued military influence over the Parliament and abuses and discrimination against minorities, including the Rohingya. The United States was also concerned about the Government’s refusal to permit the opening of an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ office in the country. Netherlands welcomed continued positive developments in Myanmar, including the general elections. It remained concerned, however, about increased pressure on religious freedom, particularly in Rakhine, and noted the importance of addressing discrimination of Muslim minorities and to end statelessness. It further called on Myanmar to release all remaining political prisoners. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea commended Myanmar’s progress in ensuring human rights and national reconciliation. Politicized country-specific procedures had nothing to do with human rights, and the Universal Periodic Review process was the right venue to discuss human rights situations.
Turkey welcomed the steps taken by Myanmar towards a democratic system and hoped that the transition would be completed with the formation of a civilian Government. Urgent action was needed in Rakhine State, one of the most prone areas to natural disasters, where Rohingyas were deprived of their basic rights, including education and travel. Australia acknowledged the role of President Thein Sein’s Government in Myanmar’s reform process, and believed that the incoming Government was well placed to address ongoing human rights issues. Addressing the situation in Rakhine State remained a priority for Australia. Australia supported extending the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.
Viet Nam stated that the recent organisation of a democratic election was a significant landmark. Given the positive developments on the ground, the international endeavours had to now focus on the need for cooperation and assistance, as suggested by Myanmar. Viet Nam was ready and prepared to continue cooperation in that regard.
Sudan said that Myanmar’s ongoing efforts should be encouraged to address challenges in the realization of the rights to adequate food, health, education and the rights of women and children. Myanmar should continue promoting the dialogue to address the constitutional reforms for the establishment of a democratic state. Ireland commended the Government’s commitment and efforts to ensure a peaceful transition process, and welcomed the ongoing peace process. Ireland remained concerned at the ongoing human rights violations in Myanmar, in particular the persecution of the Rohingyas. Philippines lauded Myanmar for its efforts towards national reconciliation and inclusive national political dialogue, and supported the active engagement of Myanmar with the international community. The Philippines was committed to continuing to constructively engage with Myanmar and support its efforts towards democratic reforms.
Denmark said that the outgoing Government of Myanmar had launched a number of reforms which had positively impacted the lives of many, while still not tackling legislative and systemic issues which continued to undermine the human rights of even more. Innovative approaches were needed to bring about positive change in regard to the serious human rights challenges facing Rohingya and other stateless Muslims. France said the international community had to remain vigilant in the upcoming stages of the process, adding that the formation of the Government should be a vehicle for the reconciliation of the people of Myanmar. The Rapporteur was asked how she saw her mandate now in the context of Myanmar’s democratic transition. Lao People’s Democratic Republic said the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was the appropriate forum to discuss and review human rights situations in any country on an equal basis and with the same emphasis. The international community should positively engage with and support Myanmar to realize the road map toward democracy and national reconciliation.
Cuba maintained its principled position against country resolutions, saying that the mechanisms for cooperation such as the Universal Periodic Review were the methods for analysing the human rights situation in countries. It was the best way to bring about cooperation for the countries concerned; technical cooperation and capacity-building should take priority. Albania said urgent action was needed particularly to address hate speech and related violence, as well as gender-based violence and discrimination. By integrating women into all levels of the decision-making process, the country would move faster forward on the path of democratization. Thailand shared the view of the Special Rapporteur that the situation in Rakhine State represented a significant challenge for the new Government. Thailand remained ready to provide development assistance to Myanmar as and when requested.
Norway said that, while continuing improvements were seen in Myanmar, the ongoing restrictions on the freedoms of expression, association and assembly remained a matter of concern. Norway was concerned about the increasingly difficult situation for human rights defenders. China said that Myanmar was pushing its agenda in an orderly fashion and would continue to develop in line with its national traditions. China would continue to promote neighbourly relations with Myanmar, while the international community should respect the right of Myanmar to choose its own development path. India stated that the progress towards political reforms and democratization made by Myanmar during the transition period deserved the international community’s continued support and encouragement. The Government of Myanmar required capacity building and global assistance to address the remaining human rights concerns.
Sri Lanka welcomed the ongoing process of peaceful and smooth transfer of political power in the country. Sri Lanka recognized the commitments and actions taken by the Government regarding the minority communities, and underlined the importance of securing early economic development simultaneously with peace-making efforts. Belarus was convinced that selective and politicized mandates of the Council could not contribute to the true promotion of human rights. Respect for State sovereignty and non-interference in human rights were the principles to be respected, including in the Universal Periodic Review. Republic of Korea had a high hope that the upcoming era in Myanmar would be coined with the full enjoyment of human rights by the people of Myanmar. It was imperative for the Government to take affirmative and proactive measures to prevent and combat acts of incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence against minorities.
Russian Federation supported a balanced and constructive approach to address human rights in Myanmar. It welcomed the free and fair elections that took place in the country, and underlined that security and development were necessary for Myanmar to consolidate its progress in the area of human rights. The consideration of Myanmar under this agenda item, however, did not have any added value. Cambodia welcomed Myanmar’s commitment to strengthen human rights protection, economic development and its cooperation with the international community. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was more appropriate than country-specific mandates to address the situation in the country. Spain noted the persistence of human rights violations that needed to be addressed, and supported the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Spain welcomed progress achieved, including the recent elections, and encouraged a definitive release of all political prisoners as well as an end to discrimination against Muslims.
Ghana welcomed the historic elections that recently took place, but noted that human rights violations, such as restrictions to peaceful civil society activities, remained. Myanmar was encouraged to address these issues, and to tackle discrimination against Rohingya people. New Zealand welcomed the remarkable transition currently underway in Myanmar, and acknowledged the wide range of human rights challenges that the new Government would have to address. It was important that the new Government addressed the ongoing situation in Rakhine and countered hate speech and incitement to violence. United Kingdom welcomed remarkable changes in Myanmar that had led to the historic elections, which were the freest for over 50 years. The New Government would have to overcome remaining challenges, including strengthening legislation and institutions charged with the promotion and protection of human rights, and tackling the situation in Rakhine. It asked how the Government could combat hate speech.
Jubilee Campaign expressed concern for political prisoners jailed under Section 295 of Myanmar’s penal code, and for those who remained in detention because of their political activities, ethnicity or religion. Myanmar was urged to repeal the package of laws which had been opposed by civil society, which would legalise discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities and against women. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development echoed calls by the Special Rapporteur for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, and said there was an urgent need for constitutional reform and the restoration of full civilian control over the military. The maintenance of “Burma/Myanmar” under item 4 was strongly supported. Human Rights Now expressed concern about the rising discrimination against some Muslim communities and called on Myanmar to combat hate speech, resolve the citizenship status of “habitual residents”, and lift restrictions on free movement in Rakhine State. The Council was called on to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur under agenda item 4. International Federation for Human Rights Leagues expressed serious concern about the situation of the Rohingya community and other ethnic and religious minorities, and urged the Government of Myanmar to take all necessary measures to end impunity. The authorities should also ensure that the judiciary existed as a separate and independent branch. International Bar Association, in a joint statement with, International Commission of Jurists, recommended that the Rapporteur benchmark Myanmar’s justice system against the United Nations Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary, United Nations Basic Principles on the role of lawyers and the United Nations Guidelines on the role of prosecutors. Repressive and arbitrarily applied laws caused lawyers in human rights and criminal cases to work in fear. Human Rights Watch reviewed the general state of affairs in Myanmar, including internal conflicts, the situation of political prisoners, rights abusing laws which remained on the books, race and religion, and the military role in society. Seven benchmarks for the new Government to address were enumerated, including a call to produce a roadmap for constitutional reform.
Amnesty International said that almost 100 prisoners of conscience were in prison in Myanmar, and ending the practices that fueled arbitrary arrests would require more than prisoners’ amnesties. Did the Special Rapporteur have plans to examine corporate human rights abuses? The human rights crisis in Rakhine State had further deteriorated. International Educational Department, Inc. noted that, although there was a new Government in Myanmar, the winning political party had never seriously taken up the situation of ethnic minorities. How did the Special Rapporteur intend to address that issue?
Concluding Remarks
YANGHEE LEE, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, in concluding remarks, said that it was vital that human rights, including land rights, the rights of internally displaced persons, accountability and women’s participation, were at the centre of the peace process. The establishment of an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights office would benefit Myanmar, she said. Technical cooperation and monitoring had to go hand in hand, and complement each other. It was therefore important that an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights office in Myanmar had both these mandates. Ms. Lee said she had listed short-term and mid-term measures that the new Government should implement. She hoped that she would be able to cooperate with the new authorities. Regarding sexual violence, she recommended that the Government collect data and include a definition of rape in the national legislation, in compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Support to the victims and survivors was also necessary. Awareness-raising measures and education were crucial to combat and prevent hate speech. Furthermore, it was important that the Government repealed some highly discriminatory legislation. Ms. Lee planned to work on business and human rights issues, in relation to the mining industry and to the culture of opium. In closing, she noted that now was not the time for complacency. The international community should measure Myanmar’s progress against its international human rights obligations.
Myanmar, speaking as the concerned country, observed that many delegations were trying to be politically correct and held views very far from the reality on the ground. The emphasis on sexual violence was unnecessarily exaggerated. Myanmar had made its views on Rakhine State well known. Religion should not be brought to the forefront of the discussion and hate speech ought to be avoided.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC16/030E