Human Rights Council Hears that the Situation in Ethiopia Has Deteriorated Significantly and that the Current State Policy in Russia Criminalises Any Dissent and Bolsters Support for the War through Censorship

Council Concludes General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia and started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation.  It also concluded the general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Mohamed Chande Othman, Chairperson of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, said since the Commission last briefed the Council in March of this year, the situation in Ethiopia had deteriorated significantly.  The latest report confirmed that Eritrean troops and Amhara militias continued to commit atrocities against civilians in Tigray, including rape and sexual violence against women and girls.  The Commission was especially concerned about the safety of minority Irob and Kunama communities that lived near the Eritrean border.  The Commission had also documented the continued forced expulsion of tens of thousands of Tigrayans from Western Tigray. 

Mr. Othman said the continued presence of Eritrean forces on Ethiopian land confirmed an ongoing pattern of atrocities.  It was a clear sign of continued complicity in and tolerance of such violations by the Ethiopian Government.  In so doing, Ethiopia had failed in its primary legal duty as a State to protect its population from human rights violations by an external force.  Beyond Tigray, the Commission was gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation in Amhara region.  The announcement last month of a state of emergency was followed by alarming reports of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and large-scale arrests of Amhara civilians.  These ongoing violations were a direct continuation of earlier massive violations of international law dating back to November 2020.  The need for a credible and inclusive process of truth, justice, reconciliation and healing had never been more urgent.  Yet Ethiopia’s current transitional justice consultation was not that process.

Ethiopia, speaking as a country concerned, said the tremendous progress made in silencing guns had not been reflected in the reports of the International Commission, which had been based on highly questionable methodology, grossly mischaracterising the positive developments, and contradicting the findings made on the ground between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission.  The International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia had gone far beyond its assumed scope, with the report having the temerity to say that some armed groups had the support of communities.  Ethiopia had successfully conducted nation-wide consultations for options on the transitional justice policy, and the report could not undermine this participatory process which met international standards. 

The National Human Rights Commission of Ethiopia also took the floor.

In the discussion, some speakers were concerned by the worrying report of the Commission, in particular its findings identifying grave and systematic violations of international law and crimes committed in Tigray, Amhara, Afar and Oromia.  The continued presence of Eritrean forces in Ethiopia was alarming, as was their involvement in some of the most serious human rights violations, such as killing, rape, and the indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas.  Many speakers called for immediate cessation of all violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.  One speaker said the Commission could not indict a country and its institutions on the basis of innuendos and remote, desk research.  Some speakers also reiterated the importance of taking into account the consent of the country concerned before establishing any human rights mechanism.  The Office of the High Commissioner was called on to provide the technical assistance requested by Ethiopia, in accordance with its national needs and priorities.

The Council then started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation.

Mariana Katzarova, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, addressing the Council for the first time as Special Rapporteur, said Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine that started in February last year had been followed by a rapid deterioration of the human rights situation.  However, the incremental restrictions on human rights in Russia over the past two decades had culminated in the current State policy of criminalising any actual or perceived dissent and bolstering support for the war through censorship, State sponsored propaganda and State-controlled information sources.  The authorities had effectively closed civic space in Russia, silencing public dissent and independent media, including the closure of Novaya Gazeta, last year. 

Ms. Katzarova said there had been mass arbitrary arrests, detentions and harassment of human rights defenders, peaceful anti-war activists, journalists, opposition leaders, cultural and religious figures, minorities, and anyone speaking out against Russia’s war on Ukraine or criticising the Government’s actions.  The Russian legislature had passed repressive legislation, including amendments to the “foreign agents” and “undesirable organizations” legislation which restricted and penalised the normal activities of human rights defenders, non-governmental organizations, and independent media outlets, forcing many to close.  Ms. Katzarova said she had received credible reports of torture and ill-treatment against protesters, including allegations of rape committed by law enforcement officials against women and men in detention. 

The Vice-President of the Council said it was his understanding that the Russian Federation was not taking the floor as a country concerned.

In the discussion, several speakers said the Russian Federation’s worsening human rights situation was of grave concern.  There were systemic violations of the rights to freedom of expression and association, as well as of academic freedom.  There was an increasing trend of politically motivated sentencing of critics.  The report documented two decades of heightened persecution of civil society actors.  Some speakers commended the efforts of human rights defenders who risked their lives speaking out against the Russian regime.  A number of speakers said that the Human Rights Council should conduct its work in respect of the principles of non-selectivity and impartiality.  These speakers expressed confidence that the Government of the Russian Federation could address its internal affairs.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded the general debate under agenda item three on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

In the discussion, some speakers raised the issue of digital justice as highly important to achieving equality and justice, in the enjoyment of rights in the digital world.  The Council was urged to condemn the use of digital crimes, spying, and humiliation to target human rights defenders.  Human rights defenders should be able to engage in their work without fear of reprisal.  Speakers also raised the issue of climate change, which remained a human rights challenge that disproportionately burdened the poorest countries, minority communities, women, and people living in rural areas.  Developed countries needed to comply with their obligations under the Paris Agreement and provide the necessary support, including financial aid and technological assistance, to help developing countries.

Speaking in the discussion on Ethiopia were Côte d'Ivoire on behalf of the African Group, European Union, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, United States, Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Belgium, China, Russian Federation, Australia, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Cuba, Spain, Uganda, Greece, Niger, Sudan, Canada, Cyprus, Iran, Eritrea and Ireland.

Also speaking were Physicians for Human Rights, European Centre for Law and Justice, Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Advocates for Human Rights, CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Maat for Peace, Development and Human Rights Association, and the International Bar Association.

Speaking in the discussion on Russia were Finland on behalf of a group of countries,
European Union, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Portugal, Czechia, Germany, Japan, Austria, United States, Croatia, Lithuania, France, Malta, Belgium, Poland, Ireland, New Zealand, Georgia, Canada, Cyprus, China and Zimbabwe.

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here.  All meeting summaries can be found here.  Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-fourth regular session can be found here.

The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 22 September, to continue the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic.

General Debate on the Promotion and Protection on All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

The general debate on the promotion and protection on all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, started in previous meetings and the summaries can be found here and here.

General Debate

In the discussion, some speakers raised the issue of digital justice as highly important to achieving equality and justice in the enjoyment of rights in the digital world.  The world today faced a new challenge in ensuring the development and use of technology, according to an approach based on the respect and promotion of human rights.  The responsibility of the Council was growing regarding monitoring the fulfilment of States' obligations on human rights and the right to development, and the increasing technical gap that promoted the lack of digital justice.  Speakers called on the Council to pay attention to issues related to the achievement of digital justice.  There was a need to develop an effective framework concerned with preventing any violations of human rights that arose from digital technologies. 

A number of speakers expressed deep concern about the widespread use of digital crimes, humiliation and spying to target human rights defenders in some cases, including through the hacking of email and social media accounts, the installation of malware on devices, and the use of surveillance cameras to track and monitor activists.  The perpetrators of these crimes often used the information collected to blackmail and intimidate human rights defenders, which had a negative and threatening effect on human rights work.  The Council was urged to condemn the use of digital crimes, spying and humiliation to target human rights defenders.  Human rights defenders should be able to engage in their work without fear of reprisal.

Some speakers also raised the issue of climate change, which remained a human rights challenge that disproportionately burdened the poorest countries, minority communities, women, and people living in rural areas.  All countries were facing environmental challenges of climate change such as pollution, water scarcity, sand and dust storms, desertification and destruction of biodiversity.  Developed countries needed to comply with their obligations under the Paris Agreement and provide the necessary support, including financial aid and technological assistance, to help developing countries.

Unilateral and illegal sanctions against some developing countries had reduced their opportunity to participate in efforts to reduce climate change, one speaker said.  Economic sanctions hindered international financing and investment in renewable energy and access to environmentally friendly technologies.  The sanctions on banks messaging system also cut off the target countries from the international market and even blocked the import of medicine and medical equipment.  Speakers echoed the concerns expressed by the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures on the illegality of the unilateral sanctions and their harmful impact on the right to health.

Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia

Report

The Council has before it the report of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia (A/HRC/54/55).

Presentation of the Report

MOHAMED CHANDE OTHMAN, Chairperson of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, said since the Commission last briefed the Council in March of this year, the situation in Ethiopia had deteriorated significantly.  At that time, there was some optimism that the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, signed in November 2022, would pave the way for an end to one of the deadliest conflicts of the twenty-first century, but this was not the case.  The latest report confirmed that Eritrean troops and Amhara militias continued to commit atrocities against civilians in Tigray, including rape and sexual violence against women and girls. 

The Commission was especially concerned about the safety of minority Irob and Kunama communities that lived near the Eritrean border.  The Commission had also documented the continued forced expulsion of tens of thousands of Tigrayans from Western Tigray.  The continued presence of Eritrean forces on Ethiopian land confirmed an ongoing pattern of atrocities.  It was a clear sign of continued complicity in and tolerance of such violations by the Ethiopian Government.  In so doing, Ethiopia had failed in its primary legal duty as a State to protect its population from human rights violations by an external force.  Beyond Tigray, the Commission was gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation in Amhara region.  The announcement last month of a state of emergency was followed by alarming reports of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and large-scale arrests of Amhara civilians. 

These ongoing violations were a direct continuation of earlier massive violations of international law dating back to November 2020.  The Ethiopian National Defence Forces, Eritrean Defence Forces, regional forces and affiliated militias perpetrated violations in Tigray on a staggering scale.  These included mass killings, widespread and systematic rape and sexual violence against women and girls, deliberate starvation, forced displacement, and large-scale arbitrary detentions, which amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Tigray forces and allied militias also committed violations against civilians in Amhara and Afar regions. 

In Oromia, the Commission uncovered ongoing patterns by Government forces of arrest, detention and torture of civilians.  The Commission was also concerned about ongoing attacks against Amhara and Oromo civilians in Oromia and Amhara regions by the Oromo Liberation Army, its splinter groups, and fano militia.  These atrocities had eroded the fabric of society.  The need for a credible and inclusive process of truth, justice, reconciliation and healing had never been more urgent.  Yet Ethiopia’s current transitional justice consultation was not that process.

Mr. Othman said earlier this year, the Federal Government released its draft “Ethiopia Policy Options for Transitional Justice” paper, which was followed by a series of consultations held across the country since March.  The process had been assessed and was found to be deeply flawed, falling far short of African Union and international standards.  The process was not driven by the needs of the victims and lacked inclusivity and transparency.  As for accountability of its forces, the Government had offered no credible evidence of legitimate investigations or trials.  The Commission had repeatedly sought through different channels to engage with the Government of Ethiopia on transitional justice but had received no response.  The Government largely ignored the Commission of Inquiry established by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.  That Commission was quietly terminated in May 2023 without producing a final report. 

In light of the Ethiopian Government’s actions, the Commission concluded that the Government had adopted a strategy of “quasi-compliance”.  This was a deliberate effort to evade regional and international scrutiny through the creation of domestic mechanisms and instrumentalisation of other institutions.  The situation in Ethiopia exhibited most of the indicators for future atrocities identified in the United Nations Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes.  The Ethiopian Government and forces under its control had a clear record of committing serious violations and continued capacity to commit atrocity crimes.  The report offered a series of recommendations for Ethiopia, including benchmarks for a legitimate transitional justice process, as well as recommendations to the international community.  These were oriented toward ending the current violence and preventing its recurrence.  The Council was urged to ensure robust and continued international investigations and public reporting of the situation.

Statement by Country Concerned

Ethiopia, speaking as a country concerned, said since the signing of the Pretoria Peace Agreement, Ethiopia had redoubled its efforts to create peace in the country, taking measures to increase accountability and redress human rights violations.  However, the tremendous progress made in silencing guns had not been reflected in the reports of the International Commission, which were based on highly questionable methodology, grossly mischaracterising the positive developments, and contradicting the findings made on the ground between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission.  This political report did a great disservice to the human rights cause. 

The International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia had gone far beyond its assumed scope, with the report having the temerity to say that some armed groups had the support of communities.  Its evidence failed to meet internationally agreed standards, falling short of the guidance provided by the Council to mandate holders.  Ethiopia had successfully conducted nation-wide consultations for options on the transitional justice policy, and the report could not undermine this participatory process which met international standards.  There had also been consultations with civil society, which were adopted with a gender-sensitive approach in a manner that was broad-based and considerate of victims.  Both the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission had deployed observers in the conflict areas, and their findings would be used for redress.

National Human Rights Commission of Ethiopia called upon the Council and the international community to support coordinated efforts for the development of an inclusive transitional justice policy for Ethiopia.

Discussion

In the discussion, a number of speakers thanked the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia for their important work and report.  It was very important to not prematurely end the Commission’s mandate. 

Some speakers welcomed the steps taken to date to implement the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement signed on 2 November 2022 in Pretoria.  This agreement remained a milestone in the pursuit of peace and justice for the people of Ethiopia, and the warring parties were commended for their commitment to the ceasefire.  Some speakers commended the transitional justice programme in Ethiopia, despite the difficulties the country faced in this regard. 

A number of speakers were concerned about the worrying report of the Commission, in particular its findings identifying grave and systematic violations of international law and crimes committed in Tigray, Amhara, Afar and Oromia.  The continued presence of Eritrean forces in Ethiopia was alarming, as was their involvement in some of the most serious human rights violations, such as killing, rape, and the indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas. 

Some speakers were deeply concerned about the conflict now occurring in Amhara regional state, with a state of emergency declared, large-scale arrests, and reports of significant civilian casualties.  The blocking of humanitarian access by various parties had led to a medical emergency and acute food insecurity; it was urgent to ensure that humanitarian actors had unhindered access to people in need.  The crackdown on civil space and the arrests of several journalists covering the human rights situation was also deeply worrying.

Many speakers called for an immediate cessation of all violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.  There needed to be further progress made on the implementation of the Pretoria agreement, as well as the immediate cessation of all ongoing violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, continued and unimpeded humanitarian access, and the further expansion of basic services in conflict-affected areas in northern Ethiopia.  It was vital that meaningful progress was now made on implementing a transitional justice framework, and ensuring accountability for the significant human rights violations and abuses which occurred during the Tigray conflict. 

Looking forward, speakers welcomed the commitment expressed by the Government of Ethiopia to implement a comprehensive national transitional justice policy, which was crucial to ensuring lasting peace and reconciliation.  The Government was encouraged to continue taking concrete steps to advance accountability and transitional justice, in accordance with international human rights' norms and standards, and supported by an international component, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Ethiopia should consider the benefits of the Council's support to further strengthen capacity building and technical assistance to the country.  Speakers called on development and humanitarian actors to support Ethiopia in efforts to rebuild areas affected by conflict. 

One speaker noted that the Commission had tabulated allegations of horror which were difficult to fathom, based largely on unsubstantiated interviews.  The Commission could not indict a country and its institutions on the basis of innuendos and remote, desk research, the speaker said.  Some speakers also reiterated the importance of taking into account the consent of the country concerned before establishing any human rights mechanism.  The Office of the High Commissioner was called on to provide the technical assistance requested by Ethiopia, in accordance with its national needs and priorities.

Speakers asked how the international community could best engage with the Government of Ethiopia and all stakeholders to ensure follow up?  Was the High Commissioner’s current set up sufficient to meet current human rights challenges?  What specific benchmarks should the international community look for to determine whether Ethiopia’s transitional justice methods were effective?  In light of the findings presented in the report, what course of action was advised for the Council to ensure it took up its responsibility towards victims of human rights violations in Ethiopia?  How could Ethiopia’s transitional justice policy best be supported by the international community? 

Concluding Remarks

STEVEN RATNER, Member of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, said the Commission’s investigation adhered rigorously to the best practices established by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Interviews were conducted with over 500 people and information from satellite images were also referenced; the Commission did not rely solely on information from social media.  The Commission had found the ability of domestic institutions to be severely lacking.  Interviewees spoke of a fear of arrest and persecution.  There had been secret trials conducted without the knowledge of the person being tried.  The international community had a role to play in conducting investigations.  These needed to be carried out by a separate body.

RADHIKA COOMARASWAMY, Member of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, said the Commission welcomed the Government’s commitment to the transitional justice process, but had found many flaws in that process, which was being limited to a truth-telling process.  The process needed to be made more inclusive.  Persons participating in the process felt vulnerable to reprisals.  Tigray and Amhara victims did not trust the process, and it seemed to have an urban bias.  Efforts toward reparations, acknowledgement and criminal accountability had not moved forward.  Commissions and committees had been set up with no real goal to implement change.  There was a need for an independent international body to monitor the situation.

MOHAMED CHANDE OTHMAN, Chair of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, said it was important that the Council took into consideration the underlying risk factors.  There were abundant risk factors for all stakeholders on the ground.  The Council also needed to consider the effects that disengaging with the issue would have on victims.  The Commission’s proposal for international scrutiny was not competitive with domestic measures.  Nothing that the Commission had done ran against the mantra of “African solutions for African problems”.  The Council needed to assume its responsibility and offer support to Ethiopia towards the goal of ending conflict in the region.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Russian Federation

Report

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation (A/HRC/54/54).

Presentation of Report

MARIANA KATZAROVA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, said she was addressing the Council for the first time, in her capacity as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, to present her report on the human rights situation within Russia’s internationally recognised borders.  This had been a challenging assignment made more so by the Russian authorities’ attempt to obstruct her work.  Ms. Katzarova respectfully urged the Russian Federation to reconsider its approach towards her mandate.  Ms. Katzarova’s mandate was denied access to the territory of the Russian Federation, but she was still able to receive information from almost 200 sources both within and outside Russia.  The large amount of information shared was indicative of the magnitude of the human rights challenges facing Russian society.  The report provided an overview of significant patterns relating to the suppression of civil and political rights in Russia. 

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine that started in February last year had been followed by a rapid deterioration of the human rights situation.  However, the incremental restrictions on human rights in Russia over the past two decades had culminated in the current State policy of criminalising any dissent and bolstering support for the war through censorship, State sponsored propaganda and State-controlled information sources.  The authorities had effectively closed civic space in Russia, silencing public dissent and independent media, including the closure of Novaya Gazeta, last year. 

Ms. Katzarova said there had been mass arbitrary arrests, detentions and harassment of human rights defenders, peaceful anti-war activists, journalists, opposition leaders, cultural and religious figures, minorities, and anyone speaking out against Russia’s war on Ukraine or criticising the Government.  The Russian legislature had passed repressive legislation, including amendments to the “foreign agents” and “undesirable organizations” legislation which restricted and penalised the normal activities of human rights defenders, non-governmental organizations, and independent media outlets, forcing many to close.

Starting on the first day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year, the Government had ordered all media to use only official, State-sanctioned sources of information when reporting on the war.  Just recently, a Russian court sentenced journalist Mikhail Afanasyev to five and a half years in prison for reporting on Russians refusing to fight in the war on Ukraine.  Over 20,000 people were detained between February 2022 and June this year for participating in peaceful anti-war protests.  Over 600 criminal lawsuits were initiated against so-called “anti-war activity.” 

Ms. Katzarova said she had received credible reports of torture and ill-treatment against protesters, including allegations of rape committed by law enforcement officials against women and men in detention.  There had been a surge in politically motivated prosecutions, with over 500 new cases last year alone.  The indictment of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich on charges of espionage highlighted the recent use of such charges against investigative journalists and people with no access to State secrets.  At least 82 such cases were initiated in the first seven months of the year, but the real number was probably much higher.

Since February 2022, Russian authorities had spread propaganda justifying the war and had used rhetoric to incite hatred and violence against Ukrainians.  Primary and secondary schools were required to hold mandatory classes designed to propagate this viewpoint among children.  Within Russia, the right to a fair trial, while provided for procedurally in domestic law, was broadly disregarded in practice.  This, plus the weakened independence of the national judiciary and law enforcement bodies, fostered an environment of impunity.  Ms. Katzarova called upon the Russian authorities to undertake comprehensive human rights reforms to redress the damage of the past two decades and to fulfil their international human rights obligations.  The international community should continue seeking engagement with the authorities to secure the immediate release of all people detained on politically motivated grounds in the Russian Federation and to put in place comprehensive policies to enable the vital work of human rights defenders. 

The Vice President of the Council said it was his understanding that the Russian Federation would not take the floor as a country concerned.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, several speakers said the Russian Federation’s worsening human rights situation was of grave concern.  There were systemic violations of the rights to freedom of expression and association, as well as of academic freedom.  The internet was being censored.  There was an increasing trend of politically motivated sentencing of critics.  The report documented two decades of heightened persecution of civil society actors.  Many human rights lawyers had been detained or forced into exile.  The Russian authorities prosecuted anyone who spoke out against the regime.  Authorities increasingly used violence to oppress civil society.  There was a lack of independence of the judiciary. 

Russia had demonstrated disrespect for the Human Rights Council.  There was a climate of fear and impunity for violent attacks.  Russia held nearly 600 political prisoners, including politicians, journalists, artists, priests and members of religious minorities.  Some speakers commended the efforts of human rights defenders who risked their lives speaking out against the Russian regime.  Addressing the internal oppression was essential for stability in the region. 

Various minorities were being oppressed, these speakers said.  They deplored recent attacks against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and the denial of the rights of these groups.  The Kremlin’s violence and oppression deeply affected marginalised communities, especially in the Northern Caucuses.  One speaker said the practice of recruiting persons convicted of gender-based violence and relieving them of criminal responsibility was deplorable. 

The war in Ukraine had amplified internal oppression, some speakers said.  They condemned crackdowns against opponents of the war.  Recent amendments to legislation had restricted civil society, silencing journalists and human rights defenders who spoke out against the war.  Numerous media outlets had been closed and journalists harassed.  The practice of removing Ukrainian children from their families and sending them to Russia was a grave violation of international law.  This practice needed to end. 

One speaker said Russia needed to halt all acts of oppression, respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect the decisions of the International Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights, and comply with all its obligations under international human rights law.  It needed to implement the recommendations in the Special Rapporteur’s report and cooperate with all Special Procedures and other international human rights mechanisms.  Russia needed to end its political misuse of the judiciary.

Some speakers urged Russia to release all political prisoners.  They said Russia needed to recognise the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and grant her access to State territory.  The Special Rapporteur needed to continue to promote justice for the people of Russia.  The international community needed to continue to advocate for the protection of human rights in Russia.  Several speakers expressed support for the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and supported its extension. 

A number of speakers said that the Human Rights Council should conduct its work in respect of the principles of non-selectivity and impartiality.  These speakers opposed mandates established without the consent of the country concerned.  The Council needed to refrain from bias, selectivity and double standards.  Without the consent of the country concerned, practical recommendations could not be formed.  These speakers expressed confidence that the Government of the Russian Federation could address its internal affairs.

Speakers asked how efforts to secure civic space could be supported; how women human rights defenders were targeted by authorities; dimensions of the human rights crisis that the report did not address; and how States could support the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, and human rights defenders inside and outside the country.  Speakers also asked about the biggest challenges to the Rapporteur’s mandate; about tendencies of disappearing civil and political rights that had been identified by the Special Rapporteur; how limited accountability of authorities perpetuated torture and ill-treatment; and about evidence that Russia was taking steps to address the violations identified in the report.