COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ESTABLISHES INTERSESSIONAL WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW AND ENHANCE ITS MECHANISMS

MORNING
HR/CN/99/64
29 April 1999


Debates Draft Resolution and Amendments on Defamation of Islam/Religions,
Postpones Action on Drafts to Friday in Hope for Consensus


The Commission on Human Rights this morning issued a Chairperson’s statement on the review of its mechanisms, noting that all of its participants were conscious of the need to enhance the effectiveness of the Commission’s mechanisms and were committed to making substantial and early progress in this regard.

In reading out the statement, Commission Chairperson Anne Anderson said that given the scope of the issues involved and the limited time available at the fifty-fifth session, the Commission had decided to establish an intersessional open-ended Working Group to continue the comprehensive examination of the report of the Bureau as well as other contributions in this connection.

Concerning the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Ms. Anderson said that while fully valuing its distinctive role and contribution, the Commission considered that the Subcommission was also in need of thorough review. The intersessional Working Group should consider the role of the Subcommission and the central importance of the body’s original role as a source of research, studies and expert advice. The Group should also study the Subcommission’s composition and questions of effectiveness and efficiency, including duration of meetings.


Ms. Anderson said the Commission also agreed to recommend to the Economic and Social Council an immediate change of the title of the Subcommission to “the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.”

Most of the debate in this morning’s meeting focused on a draft resolution and two amendments to it on the defamation of Islam. Pakistan, on behalf of the members of the Organization of Islamic Conference, believed the draft resolution should draw specific attention to the specific forms of prejudice and discrimination suffered by Islam. Germany, on behalf of the members of the European Union and others, wanted to introduce amendments so that the text covered the negative stereotyping of all religions.

Action on the draft resolution and the two amendments was postponed to Friday, the last day of the Commission, in hope that a consensus could be reached by then.

Representatives of Germany (on behalf of the European Union), India, Japan, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference), Sri Lanka, Argentina and Cuba addressed the Commission.

The Commission resumes its plenary at 10 a.m. on Friday, 30 April, when it is expected to conclude its work this session.

Chairperson’s statement on review of mechanisms

ANNE ANDERSON, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, said all participants in the Commission were conscious of the need to enhance the effectiveness of its mechanisms and were committed to making substantial and early progress in this regard. They acknowledged the importance of considering the issues involved in a comprehensive and integrated manner but also saw benefit in the incremental steps intended to advance the overall process. The Commission expressed its appreciation of the extensive report prepared by the Bureau after wide-ranging consultations. This report moved the discussion on review of mechanisms forward significantly and the Commission was determined to maintain the impetus and proceed in a result-oriented manner.

Ms. Anderson said that given the scope of the issues involved and the limited time available at the fifty-fifth session, the Commission had decided to establish an intersessional open-ended Working Group under this item on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission to continue the comprehensive examination of the Bureau report as well as other contributions in this connection. The Commission envisaged that given the time allocated during the coming year and the amount of preparatory work already done, the Working Group should be able to complete its work in advance of the next session of the Commission. The Commission had carefully considered the decision-making basis on which the intersessional Working Group should operate and the value of a consensual approach was fully recognized, however there was some concern that it might impede progress in areas where a broad and representative majority wished to move forward.

Ms. Anderson said the Commission agreed, in agreement with the Bureau report, to ensure the prompt implementation of special procedure mandates by proposing to the Economic and Social Council to include in its regular May organizational session consideration of any proposals regarding special procedure mandates adopted at the annual session of the Commission. In order to seek to address current difficulties regarding documentation, the special procedures should continue to submit their reports whenever possible by Mid-December. With regards to responsibility for appointments to special procedure posts and duration of mandates of mechanisms, the Commission considered current practice broadly satisfactory but was prepared to consider any recommendations from the intersessional Working Group. It requested the Working Group to focus in particular on the following areas in preparation for action at the fifty-sixth session: how to rationalize and strengthen the Commission's network of special procedures; and how to support the mechanisms in responding urgently and effectively when allegations or concerns of serious human rights violations requiring immediate clarification and relief measures were brought to their attention. The intersessional Working Group was also requested to prepare recommendations on the 1503 procedure for decision at the next session, taking account of the detailed suggestions contained in the Bureau report.

While fully valuing the distinctive role and contribution of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, the Commission considered that it too was in need of a thorough review. It requested the intersessional Working Group to draw up recommendations for submission to the fifty-sixth session, taking account of recommendation 12 of the Bureau report. In drawing up its recommendations, the Working Group should focus on the role of the Subcommission and the central importance of the body’s original role as a source of research, studies and expert advice, its composition and questions of effectiveness and efficiency, including duration of meetings. The Commission noted that recommendation 13 of the Bureau report identified a number of important issues including laying groundwork for standard-setting working groups, establishing time frames, the method of decision-making and the role of Chairs of such groups. The Commission agreed to recommend to ECOSOC an immediate change of the title of the Subcommission to “the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.”

The Commission once again underlined the importance it attached to the strengthening of mechanisms, its strong desire that the intersessional Working Group should proceed in an expeditious and constructive manner, and its intention to mark next year's session with adoption of a coherent and substantial set of measures aimed at enhancing the effective of the Commission.

Action taken on draft resolutions

According to the pending draft resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.40) on the defamation of Islam, the Commission would express concern at the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means to spread intolerance against Islam; would urge all States to take all necessary measures to combat such hatred and intolerance and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief; and would call upon the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance to continue to devote attention to attacks against Islam and attempts to defame it.

According to the pending draft resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.90) on amendments to L.40, the Commission would change the title of L.40 to stereotyping of religions; would express concern at the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means to spread negative religious stereotypes; and would call upon the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance to continue to devote attention to negative stereotyping of religions.

According to the pending draft resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.104) on amendments to draft resolution L.90, the Commission would, among others, change the title to “negative stereotyping of religions, including Islam.”

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), on behalf of the European Union and central and eastern European countries associated with it, said that L.40 and L.90 were closely linked, and therefore both would be considered together. Whilst recognising the concerns of the authors of L.40, the European Union thought that the text was not well-balanced in nature. Any approach towards a phenomenon needed to be broader because other religions had been and continued to be subject to intolerance and persecution. The European Union believed in tolerance. The reasons for the amendments contained in L.90 were in order to enable the Commission to use the text to cover all religions. The exclusive concern voiced on the relationship between Islam and the media was also unbalanced. Exclusive attention should be paid to negative stereotyping of all religions.

H.K. SINGH (India), speaking on draft resolution L.40 on the defamation of Islam, said his country attached the highest importance to the fight against discrimination and defamation of all religions. All the religions of the world were represented in India. Operative paragraph 2 of L.40 combatted ignorance and prejudice against religions. India was against all actions of defamation or discrimination. However, as a secular State, India was concerned about the use of public expression which singled one specific religion. India felt this issue should have been addressed under the civil and political rights item. India felt that defamation and stereotyping were not exclusive to any one religion. These were best handled through education. These issues were relevant in all parts of the world. India could not associate itself with L.40 but could support L.90. Regarding L.90, India was deeply concerned about the wording "negative stereotyping of minority religions". If L.90 were acted on, India would have preferred to see "in their respective contexts" added.

SHIGEKI SUMI (Japan) shared the grave concerns about the existence of intolerance and prejudice against religion. However, it was not appropriate for the Commission to pick out one religion. Draft resolution L.40 should be further amended. These kinds of resolutions should be adopted by consensus, and there was concern that a vote might bring out some prejudice even in this forum. There might be a misunderstanding that concern for the specific religion was not widespread. Japan would have appreciated it if the draft had been more general, and thought that the issue should have been addressed under item 11 concerning civil and political rights.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) regretted that the amendments suggested by Germany would seek to suppress the specific reference to Islam, and thus suppress the attempt to bring to the attention of the international community the specific problem faced by Islam. Pakistan and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) would not vote against a draft resolution against the defamation of religions. However, it believed that Islam was suffering from a specific form of discrimination. Pakistan resented any attempt to hamper the draft whose purpose was to call attention to the fact that Islam was being specifically threatened from certain quarters. Pakistan appealed to all sponsors of L.90 to withdraw their text, to see the problem faced by Islam, and to allow the OIC to draw the attention of the international community to the issue. The draft would have a lasting impact in the Islamic world. Pakistan appealed to the European Union not to water it down. Since a consensus could not be reached, sub-amendments were proposed in L.104.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on the European Union’s reaction to the L.104 amendment to L.40 on the defamation of Islam, said it had carefully listened to the statement of the delegation of Pakistan. Unfortunately, the gap in positions could not be bridged since it was too specific and went too far on Islam. The wording of L.104 was too strong and too specific and Germany called on all delegates to reject the amendments and vote unanimously on L.40. The Indian amendment was an improvement and could be readily accepted if paragraph 5 read "deeply concerned at the negative stereotyping of minority religions."

H.M.G.S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said that this was a difficult situation, what with all the different amendments and the sensitive nature of the subject. Sri Lanka could support a number of the amendments, however there was doubt as to whether justice was being done to the subject. The respective delegations who had proposed amendments were asked to either reach consensus upon these matters, or to withdraw them.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Like Minded Group, said the Chairpersons’s statement had attempted to bridge the gap over the review of mechanisms of the Commission. While the Group was not happy with all aspects of the statement, it supported it with the understanding that in paragraph 2, the intersessional Working Group would also examine mechanisms in a broader sense; that in paragraph 5, "a consensus requirement" was understood to mean "no vote" and "no veto" by a single delegation; that paragraph 9 would not in any way determine the priority of issues to be examined or prejudged, and that in paragraph 4, mention of "coherent and substantial set of measures" was a recognition of the fact that issues were interconnected and must be dealt with in a holistic manner.



MANUEL BENITEZ (Argentina) said that on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution on the review of mechanisms, they were pleased to accept the Chairperson's statement just made as it represented compromise and flexibility shown by all of the delegations present. It was a very important achievement that spoke for itself. It was also a starting point which would enable the Commission to take the process forward. The intersessional Working Group which would be convened should be inspired by the same constructive spirit shown in the statement. Non-governmental organizations had made a valuable contribution to the process and should continue to do so since their participation was crucial in the functioning of the mechanisms under consideration. The Chairperson's statement should be an official document for the Working Group.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on draft resolution L.40 on defamation of Islam, said that there was a feeling of disappointment that not all points had not been included but there was a feeling of relief that the Commission might reach a consensus. The text did not need interpretation.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said that it would like to associate itself with the statements made expressing the satisfaction felt about the Chairperson’s statement on the review of mechanisms. The Representative of Argentina had used a certain terminology, and Cuba would like to point out that it was not a co-sponsor of the draft resolution on this issue. Cuba was against a review that might bog down the Commission in extra work. The current revision was not opposed, as long as the work methods were respected.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that regarding L.40, consultations had resulted in a fair amount of success. Progress had been made on some points. A revised text was being prepared and it should be acceptable to all sides.