COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON DRAFT OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Human Rights Council
MORNING
4 June 2008


Concludes Interactive Dialogue on the Right to Education, Human Rights and
Extreme Poverty, and Human Rights and Transnational Corporations

The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with the Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the mandate holders on the right to education, human rights and extreme poverty, and human rights and transnational corporations.

Catarina de Albuquerque, Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that the Working Group had concluded its mandate and had not objected to the transmission of the draft Optional Protocol to the Council. Most delegations had expressed the view that the document was a good compromise text. This draft was the result of the skills, engagement, conviction, flexibility, spirit of compromise, intelligence and enthusiasm of a large group of delegates. The draft Optional Protocol provided for a procedure of individual communications as well as optional procedures of inquiries and inter-State communications. The Working Group had concluded its work and there were now ongoing informal negotiations on a draft resolution. It was hoped that they would soon be concluded and that the Council would be able to adopt the draft Optional Protocol during the present session. In doing-so the Council would take an important first step to re-establish the balance between civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights.

In the interactive dialogue on the report, speakers said the draft Optional Protocol was a delicate compromise that had evolved from initially widely divergent positions. Some urged the Council to adopt it by consensus without any changes, while others said that article 2 of the Optional Protocol excluded part 1 of the Covenant, including the issue of self-determination. The Optional Protocol was a protocol to the whole Covenant, not to only part of it. This defect should be fixed through a clear reference to all rights set out in the Covenant.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were the delegations of Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Chile on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), Russian Federation, Cuba, United Kingdom, Italy, India, France, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa, Mexico, Bangladesh, Brazil, Algeria, Portugal, Argentina, Poland, the Holy See, Austria, Turkey, Syria, Finland, Iran, Ecuador, Croatia, and Qatar.

Also speaking were representatives of Human Rights Commission of Philippines, Foodfirst Information and Action Network FIAN, Europe Third World Center, Indian Council, Columbian Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the mandate holders on the right to education, human rights and extreme poverty, and human rights and transnational corporations.

In concluding remarks, Vernor Munoz Villabolos, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, noted that most of the questions were directed at the specific roles and measures in protecting education during emergency situations. In his view, part of the measures should firstly include the need to develop indicators, linked to natural disasters and the causes of discrimination in this context. Good practices needed to be developed in this regard and it was important to tackle the causes. It was urgent to develop educational plans for emergency situations which could rapidly help to restore education services.

Maria Magdalena Sepulveda, Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, said that she was encouraged by the number of Member States of the Council who supported and were committed to further developing mechanisms to deal with extreme poverty. The notion of participation was at the centre of the human rights approach to poverty. The people living in extreme poverty were important players in policy formation and they must be involved at all levels: design, implementation and evaluation. These people should take part in all of the technical processes in the formation of policies that affected them directly.

John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, said his report outlined the concept of due diligence which meant companies needed to be aware about impacts of their actions on human rights. That needed to be further developed. It required answering questions like how far could businesses in general be addressed before addressing sectoral, regional and size of businesses concerns. Security regulations and corporate law were important tools and he would welcome suggestions on their use.

In the interactive dialogue on the reports of the mandate holders on the right to education, human rights and extreme poverty and human rights and transnational corporations, speakers said that extreme poverty impeded the practical enjoyment of human rights. It had negative impacts on all rights and undermined all spheres of society like a domino effect. It caused social exclusion and could be a source of tension and affect national security. The issue of providing education during natural disasters was underlined. A rights-based approach to education was imperative, and the goal of a human rights-based approach to education was simple. The conceptual framework presented in the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations was welcomed. His recognition of the central role of duties of States in protecting all rights, including in relation to business activities, was also welcomed.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the right to education, human rights and extreme poverty, and human rights and transnational corporations were the delegations of South Africa, Brazil, Costa Rica, Azerbaijan and Sri Lanka.

Also speaking were representatives of the Conseil Consultatif des Droits de L’Homme Morocco, Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, International Movement ATD Fourth World, Amnesty International, International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity, in a joint statement with Bischofliches Hilfswerk Misereor and Global Policy Forum, World Vision International, in a joint statement with International Save the Children Alliance, International Commission of Jurists, International Indian Treaty Council, Union de l'Action Feminine, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, in a joint statement with German Institute for Human Rights, National Consultative Commission on Human Rights of France, Danish Institute for Human Rights, and the Mexican Human Rights Commission, Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH); Asia Pacific Women's Watch; Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions; and Baha'i International Community, Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Indian Council of South America, in a joint statement with International Human Rights Association of American Minorities and Union of Arab Jurists, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, and the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights (APDH).


The Council is next scheduled to meet at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will hold a general debate on reports by the United Nations Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights.



Report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Council has before it the report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its fifth session (A/HRC/8/7 and Corr.1) which contains a summary of the discussions held by the Working Group during the two parts of its fifth session, from 4 to 8 February and from 31 March to 4 April 2008, respectively, where the Working Group discussed a first and a second revised draft of the Optional Protocol. The Optional Protocol would enable the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to receive and consider communications submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, under the jurisdiction of a State Party, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in Parts II and III of the Covenant on Economic, Social and cultural Rights by that State Party.

Presentation by the Chairperson of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

CATARINA DE ALBUQUERQUE, Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, reporting on the fifth session of the open-ended Working Group, said that the Working Group had concluded its mandate and had not objected to the transmission of the draft Optional Protocol to the Council. Most delegations had expressed the view that the document had been a good compromise text. It was the culmination of a long road. The idea of bringing complaints cases of alleged violations of economic, social and cultural rights had started to be discussed within the United Nations 60 years ago. While not perfect, the draft Optional Protocol was still a great text. It was, for many, a dream coming true. For many, it represented the reassurance that their causes might and would be heard by the United Nations. This draft was the result of the skills, engagement, conviction, flexibility, spirit of compromise, intelligence and enthusiasm of a large group of delegates. Thanks were expressed to the many contributors.

Ms. De Albuquerque said that the draft Optional Protocol provided for a procedure of individual communications as well as optional procedures of inquiries and inter-State communications. It introduced new elements, compared to existing communications procedures: it included new admissibility criteria, and it introduced a provision enabling the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to decline to consider a communication where it did not reveal that the author had suffered a clear disadvantage. Another innovative article mentioned the possibility of the Committee to make its good offices available to the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter.

Ms. De Albuquerque said that the Working Group had done its best during the past five years to get as close as possible to an ideal and acceptable text. The Working Group had concluded its work and there were now ongoing informal negotiations on a draft resolution. It was hoped that they would soon be concluded and that the Council would be able to adopt the draft Optional Protocol during the present session. In doing-so the Council, would take an important first step to re-establish the balance between civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights.

Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that inspired by their own regional normative and institutional framework, the African Group had supported this initiative which would enhance the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, and would signal a new era to end a decade-long artificial division between all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The African Group also commended the Chairperson of the Working Group for her active participation and guidance at the African regional consultation held in Cairo in January of this year. They welcomed the constructive spirit and engagement in the Working Group on the Optional Protocol since its first meeting in 2004. Significant progress was achieved at the fifth session of the Working Group which allowed for the transmission of the text of the Optional Protocol to the Council and signalled the time had come for its adoption. The African Group expressed their overall satisfaction with the text of the Optional Protocol, recognizing that comprises were always necessary in difficult negotiations.

The African Group said that despite shortcomings, the most effective means of exploring and adopting international cooperation and assistance in the Protocol would be the inclusion of the modest but potentially beneficial provision on the establishment of a Trust Fund. They welcomed the provisions on interim and protective measures, the enquiry procedure, and innovative article on friendly settlement. At the same time they were happy to see the numerous proposals which were originally designed to undermine the integrity of the text and the effectiveness of the Protocol as a whole did not result in significant damage to the Protocol. The African Group said that they had always maintained that the Optional Protocol should be comprehensive in scope.

EDUARDO CHIHUALIAF (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries GRULAC, thanked the Chairperson on the Working Group for her report and congratulated her for her efforts. GRULAC had always defended the indivisibility of human rights and argued for the indivisibility of civil and political rights on one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. GRULAC had supported the work of the Working Group. It supported the draft Optional Protocol as it was written and called for its adoption unchanged.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) thanked the Working Group for their effective work. The Working Group had created a quality document that would undoubtedly improve the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. It ensured that there was a counterweight. The text was obviously not ideal but it had been the result of complex negotiations. It had led to a balance in opinions and it was vital to ensure this balance remained. The Russian Federation hoped that during the ongoing negotiations on some of the remaining aspects the achieved balance that had been attained in the Working Group would be maintained. In its view, the adoption of the Optional Protocol by the Council without a vote was vital. This would enable them to achieve the further realisation of these vital rights.

RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba) said that the progress during the fifth session of the Working Group was satisfactory. One element remained to be agreed on, and they hoped it would be agreed upon with consensus. Cuba supported the Portuguese initiative. The adoption of this Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was a step in the right direction. However, it was not enough to adopt this Protocol to fill the gap for civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. There were other external factors that must be met by States for people to enjoy their economic, social and cultural rights. Multinational and trade institutions should be part of the process. Developed States should meet the 0.07 per cent of GDP to give to official development assistance in order for the world to come to the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights.

MELANIE HOPKINS (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom believed all human rights to be indivisible and mutually reinforcing be they economic, social, cultural, civil, or political. It did not consider that economic, social and cultural rights lent themselves to third party adjudication in the same way as civil and political rights. The United Kingdom was sceptical of the benefits of a complaints mechanism. It participated in the negotiating process, but favoured an a la carte approach. States would be monitored by their periodic reporting to the Committee and through the Universal Periodic Review. The adoption of a comprehensive approach in the final text would make it difficult for the United Kingdom to become a State Party of the Protocol. The United Kingdom attached particular importance to the requirement in Article 8 for the Committee to address the reasonableness of the steps taken by a State Party. The United Kingdom did not support the inclusion of a trust fund in the Optional Protocol.

NICOLETTA PICCIRILLO (Italy) expressed Italy’s most sincere appreciation for the admirable job done by the Working Group during the five years of negations. Italy believed that the draft text was a compromise among the different opinions expressed by all delegations on several delicate issues. The current text represented a constructive and significant outcome in strengthening the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. Italy was confident that the text would be adopted as it was.

RAJIV KUMAR CHANDER (India) thanked Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque for her report and presentation. Under her successful leadership, the Working Group was able to agree on a text for transmission to the Human Rights Council for its consideration. The negotiations were difficult and extensive, spanning over five years. The final text was a delicate compromise that evolved from initially widely divergent positions. India would have preferred many changes to the text but accepted the compromise. India recognized the concerns that some delegations had and indicated their openness for the amendments put forth by these delegations. Through the informal consultations held earlier, India recognized that concerned delegations had further amendments in mind, and this should be avoided. Such an approach could lead to a chain reaction with other delegations proposing further changes. India supported the adoption of the text by the Council as received from the Working Group without any changes. India also found it pertinent to mention that the proposed Optional Protocol was a procedural instrument to enable the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights to receive communications and complaints from individuals or groups of individuals under the jurisdiction of a State Party to the Optional Protocol. India said it was not meant to address political issues and therefore must refrain from injecting political elements into the text.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said after five years of negotiations, the Human Rights Council now had the chance to adopt by consensus the Optional Protocol. During these negotiations, France had honoured its commitments to individual human rights. The Optional Protocol covered all rights without allowing the State to select any of them. States were given prerogatives to protect specific areas of concern. The text was balanced and France appreciated the good sense of everybody and thanked the Chairperson on the Working Group. France hoped that the Human Rights Council at this session and the General Assembly next autumn would adopt the text. This would take place during the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which gave this process particular importance. France would welcome consensus on the Optional Protocol.

DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said that Indonesia believed that the promotion and protection of human rights had to be based on the principles of universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness. Great importance was also attached to the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights. Indonesia had always been of the view that there should be a balanced approach between all rights. The Optional Protocol, if adopted, would thus provide an important opportunity to reiterate the equal status of all human rights. The draft was a compromise text, which did not fully reflect all the views expressed, nor did it accommodate the interests of all concerned States and parties. Indonesia however remained open-minded and flexible in the deliberations and hoped that a consensus could be reached as soon as possible.

SYED ALI ASAD GILLANI (Pakistan) said that during the last session of the Working Group many delegations expressed their reservations on the current text of the Optional Protocol. Despite this the Working Group agreed to transmit the text of the Optional Protocol to the Human Rights Council for its consideration, pending resolution of differences on Article 2. Pakistan said that they had reservations regarding Article 2, due to the exclusion of Part 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from Article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Efforts were being made to find common grounds on the proposed language of the Article. Pakistan thanked Ms. Albuquerque who participated in the consultations on April 30 to find a solution to Article 2, and appreciated the Mission of Portugal and other delegations in this regard.

Pakistan said that the language of Article 2 of the Optional Protocol was flawed. The draft Protocol was an Optional Protocol to the entire Covenant, and was not a protocol to only Part II and Part III, and therefore it could not draw a distinction between rights and exclude one full set of rights. In consultation with other delegations, Pakistan said they were exploring a formulation that would adequately address concerns of all Member States.

BEULAH NAIDOO (South Africa) thanked the Chairperson of the Working Group. Under her guidance the Working Group had produced the Optional Protocol and submitted it to the Human Rights Council for adoption. South Africa had supported this initiative since the start of negotiations. The draft Optional Protocol represented the views of growing cross-regional support for an effective instrument which would provide for remedies to victims at an international level. The Optional Protocol represented a significant step forward in ensuring access to justice for victims of all human rights violations. It was pleasing to note that African countries had been at the forefront of the international effort to enhance human rights protection. South Africa supported the decision of the Working Group to submit the draft Optional Protocol to the Human Rights Council and urged that it be adopted by consensus.

ELIA DEL CARMEN SOSA NISHIZAKI (Mexico) thanked the Working Group for its work which had led to this important moment in history. The Optional Protocol promoted the justiciability of all human rights. It was hoped that the draft would be approved by consensus by the Council and the General Assembly. Mexico noted that the nature of the document was procedural; it did not amend nor transform obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The adoption of the Optional Protocol would send a clear signal to each person attaching importance to economic, social and cultural rights.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that all issues were not reflected in the draft Optional Protocol as they had hoped and Bangladesh knew many others were of the same sentiment. This was a difficult negotiating process and one of compromise. Bangladesh was happy that the Working Group did not resort to an a la carte approach; such an approach would have undermined the human rights system.

MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil) said Brazil supported the mechanisms to strengthen development. The draft Optional Protocol was essential. Brazil restated its support of the indivisibility of all human rights. It supported the draft Optional Protocol. Selective treatment of articles must be avoided. The a la carte option represented a retrograde step to normal practices in addressing the protection of human rights. Brazil believed that consensus for the Optional Protocol could be achieved and called on the Human Rights Council to approve and adopt the Optional Protocol.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) thanked the Working Group for its work. However, the Representative of Egypt had raised some of points that had also been reiterated by Pakistan. The current draft recommended that the Optional Protocol would be only applicable to part II and III of the Covenant and that it would not apply to Part I, which included the principle of self determination. The mandate of the Working Group was not to add or remove rights. The right of people to self determination was part of the United Nations Charter and the United Nations system as a whole. Was the Council planning to revise the United Nations Charter? It was important to include all parts of the Covenant in the Optional Protocol.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal) said that Portugal had recommended Ms. De Albuquerque as Chairperson of the Working Group in 2004, a proposal that had been backed by Regional Groups. Ms. Albuquerque’s great human rights expertise, good negotiation skills and tremendous and relentless energy, even during difficult times and notwithstanding personal sacrifice, had strongly contributed to this success. Portugal thanked her for her service to the human rights cause. Portugal expressed gratitude to all delegations that had participated in the negotiations that had contributed to the elaboration of the draft Optional Protocol. In particular, Portugal thanked the informal Group of Friends of the Optional Protocol, which had been fundamental in finding solutions and building support. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was also thanked for the tireless support in the process. The High Commissioner was always clear and determined in encouraging all Member States to elaborate the present Optional Protocol.

The Council during this session had a historical opportunity to put an end to the disparities between the various human rights. Portugal had proposed to the Council a draft resolution that aimed to adopt the draft Optional Protocol and send it to the General Assembly for final adoption. Informal consultations on the draft resolution had taken place and Portugal hoped that the draft resolution would be supported by all the delegations and would be approved by consensus.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said Argentina had actively participated in and supported the Working Group that drafted the Optional Protocol. Argentina also supported the broad view that the Optional Protocol took. The Working Group had worked over five years and this period had included much fierce debate, but it had produced a compromise text. Argentina firmly supported the compromise text and called for its adoption in the current Human Rights Council session.

JERZY CIECHANSKI (Poland) said that the idea of individual complaints to the violations of economic, social and cultural rights had many supporters among States. Yet, it was remarkable that in this case, a considerable number of countries with proven records of respect to human rights had expressed serious reservations about the practicality of individual complaints as an effective mechanism. Some of them had expressed the fear that that procedure might be used to alter and broaden State obligations under the Covenant. Poland had taken due regard that the rulings of the Committee did not have a binding character, nor that it would with the adoption of the Optional Protocol.

SILVANO M. TOMASI (Holy See) said that the Holy See associated itself with previous speakers in thanking the Chairperson of the Open-ended Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Ms. Albuquerque, for her efforts and firmness in carrying out her work. In the fight against poverty, especially extreme poverty, the international community had set many objectives, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights served as a major framework for the achievement of those goals. The steps that had been taken to increase its effectiveness through new mechanisms were a sign of the continued determination to look at implementing all human rights in a balanced way. The Optional Protocol represented a positive step towards a fair social and international order, and in protecting and promoting all human rights without distinction.

MICHAEL SCHOISWOHL (Austria) thanked the members and the Chairperson of the Working Group and welcomed the creation of an individual complaints mechanism to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This was an important step to further enhance and strengthen the human rights protection system. Austria had been engaged in the drafting process. The new mechanism could only be viable with broad membership and effective implementation in all States parties. The Optional Protocol needed to ensure the national specificities in the implementation of the human rights obligations under the Covenant. Austria understood that language of the draft Optional Protocol in its eventually adopted version would recognize the variety of means and choices available to States when implementing their obligations under the Covenant.

TUGBA SARAYONLU ETENSEL (Turkey) acknowledged the challenge in bridging the divergences over the draft Optional Protocol. The text had improved during the last sessions of the Working Group. Turkey still believed that the final outcome was not entirely satisfactory. Throughout the negotiations, Turkey had supported the opt-out approach, thus, retention of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the draft text. This option would have provided States with a certain degree of flexibility, given the distinct nature of economic, social and cultural rights. They were not convinced by arguments that such an approach would create hierarchy among the two sets of rights. However, Turkey was ready to join consensus.

ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) thanked the Chairperson of the Working Group and its members for elaborating the draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and further expressed appreciation to the candid and inclusive manner in which Ms. Albuquerque had conducted the intergovernmental negotiations throughout the different sessions of the Working Group. Syria stated for the record concern about the selective nature of Article 2 of the draft Protocol. The article ignored the central role of Article 1 of the Covenant to the full realization of all other human rights because it had set terms of reference of the Protocol on the basis of Article 2 and 3 of the Covenant. It was unacceptable to have a process of cherry picking, whereby an obliteration of Article 1 of the Covenant would only raise more scepticism and reduced consensus. Syria requested that this defect be fixed through a clear reference to all rights set out by the Covenant; and in doing so the Covenant would be saved from being born with one leg.

PEKKA METSO (Finland) congratulated the Chairperson of the Working Group. Finland considered all human rights to be universal and indivisible. The draft Optional Protocol was a great step forward. The negotiated text had the full support of Finland. The text reflected in the best possible way the compromise achieved in the discussions. It encouraged all members to respect the compromise and the work carried out to achieve it. Finland looked forward to the adoption of the Optional Protocol during this session of the Human Rights Council

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran) commended the valuable efforts of the Working Group. Iran was pleased that the draft Optional Protocol was going to be adopted at the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This provided an ample opportunity to reiterate the equal status of all human rights. The international community had to treat all rights equally. Iran believed that the scope of the Optional Protocol should cover the contents of all the rights set forth in the Covenant. Concerns of some States in this regard had to be taken into account.

JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador) said that Ecuador was faithful to the principles of the international mandates and treaties to which it was a party. The draft Optional Protocol provided an instrument to individual complaints under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There was a possibility of ensuring these economic, social and cultural rights could be provided by the State to progress development. The Optional Protocol did not exclude the rights under the Covenant. Ecuador fully supported the statement made by Chile on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States and said that the text should not be changed based on the extensive work that had taken place.

The Representative of Croatia, thanked the Chairperson of the Working Group. The text was agreed upon at the Working Group’s last session. It had not been an easy task. There were many reasons for hesitation. The adoption of the Optional Protocol now would reinforce the idea that all rights were universal and indivisible. Croatia had supported the work since its beginning. It supported the comprehensive approach towards the Optional Protocol. There was a need for progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights in accordance with the different levels of development. Croatia encouraged all delegations to consider and approve the resolution calling for an adoption of the Optional Protocol.

FAISAL ABDULLA AL-HENZAB (Qatar), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, expressed thanks for the efforts of the Working Group. The Arab Group underscored the need to move to negotiations which would lead to consensus and to adopt the text as soon as possible. None of the rights in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should be forgotten. For the Arab Group, it was still necessary to make some amendments to the text in order to achieve balance with regard to the operative paragraph 2.

CECILIA R. V. QUISUMBING, of Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, in a joint statement with German Institute for Human Rights, National Consultative Commission on Human Rights of France, Danish Institute for Human Rights, and the Mexican Human Rights Commission, welcomed the transmission by the Working Group on the draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the Human Rights Council. The Commission firmly supported the adoption of the draft Optional Protocol in its present format by the Council during the session. The text was a result of an intensive, transparent and participatory working process under the outstanding leadership of Working Group’s Chairperson, Ms. Albuquerque. The text comprised essential elements that were needed for practical and effective international remedy to empower alleged victims of violations to lodge a communication under the covenant. Despite comprises made to the final text, it by and large represented a far-reaching consensus with all actors involved. The organization underlined the importance of having an Optional Protocol which succeeded in putting economic, social and cultural rights on equal footing with civil and political rights in terms of institutions and procedures.

SADRA RATJEN, of Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH); Asia Pacific Women's Watch; Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions; and Baha'i International Community, welcomed the draft Optional Protocol. It did not see all of its demands in the draft, but considered the text as a significant achievement. It built on the existing communication mechanisms of other protocols. It covered part I and II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allowed communications from individuals or groups of individuals concerning alleged violations of States’ obligations under the Covenant. They supported a comprehensive approach and the inclusion of Part I of the Covenant and urged Member States of the Human Rights Council to adopt the Optional Protocol and submit it to the General Assembly.

BEATRICE SAWADOGO, of Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said that the Council had now before it the draft Optional Protocol. The progress made in this regard was welcomed. Concern was expressed over the sacrifice of self-determination on the altar of consensus. Excluding this right was extremely grave. It was there to protect the sovereignty of all States. It was one of the elementary rights of every citizen. Adopting this Optional Protocol would be important in order to enable the Committee to hear communications but it should not be adding new rights nor removing existing rights. A second item of concern was that according to a provision of the Optional Protocol, the Committee was meant to determine whether a state policy was found to be “responsible” or not. It was felt that instead of this, measures taken by States should rather be assessed.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, in a joint statement with International Human Rights Association of American Minorities and Union of Arab Jurists, said that the right to self-determination for indigenous people must be included in the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in order for indigenous people’s rights to be protected, and for them to protect themselves. The exclusion of Article I should be revisited and as such included in the Optional Protocol. Minimum standards should be identified, and according to Article 41120 in December 1986 the standard settings inclusion was established for all frameworks. This should be respected and addressed in order to ensure that full rights for the indigenous peoples were protected.

ISABEL HEYER, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, attached great importance to the draft Optional Protocol. The Secretary-General of the United Nations had denounced numerous violations of economic, social and cultural rights. All rights were interdependent. It was urgent that a mechanism for victims of violations of such rights had a hearing. The Commission urged the Human Rights Council to adopt the text of the draft Optional Protocol at this session.

RENATA FOUREAUX, of Amnesty International, welcomed the draft Optional Protocol. Since its inception, the United Nations had set a universal standard for the protection of human rights. The Council was called to take a highly significant step towards ensuring access to justice for victims of all human rights violations by adopting the Optional Protocol at this session. This step would serve to rectify an imbalance in the treatment of rights. The adoption of the Optional Protocol would be a fitting way to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration and the 15th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration.

BRENDA VUKOVIC, of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, said that the Assembly considered the Optional Protocol to be an integral instrument in the interdependence and universality of human rights. The Assembly was concerned about Article 2, which explained that communications would be left to parts two and three. They were also concerned that it would establish a hierarchy and diminish visibility. The Assembly fully supported the draft Optional Protocol and urged that the Council to adopt it immediately.

Continuation of the Interactive Dialogue on the Right to Education, Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, and Human Rights and Transnational Corporations

GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI (South Africa) said that South Africa supported the work and mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty. As part of strengthening this mandate, extensive work should be done in the area of interfacing with the communities living in extreme poverty, as part of efforts towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The existing international legal framework on international cooperation made a strong case for rich developed countries to assume a moral and political obligation to assist developing countries. The nexus between human rights and extreme poverty was unquestionable. Extreme poverty impeded the practical enjoyment of human rights. On transnational corporations, South Africa believed that the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General had provided a sound conceptual and policy framework. Further, the incidents of serious human rights abuses in conflict areas needed to be examined within the parameters of a governance framework.

MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil) said that Brazil welcomed the mandate holders on the right to education, Vermor Munoz Villalobos, on extreme poverty, Maria Magdalena Sepulveda, and on human rights and transnational corporations, John Ruggie. Brazil commended them for their fruitful, constructive and balanced presentations. On the right to education, Brazil asked if the Special Rapporteur could further comment on the main challenges ahead in carrying out the mandate. On extreme poverty, Brazil asked the Independent Expert to address some key elements of the challenge of overcoming and eradicating extreme poverty. Brazil attributed great importance to popular participation in the development of public budgets. The report also focused on the importance of the participation of the poor people in the development and implementation of policies affecting them. Brazil asked the Independent Expert to address the core challenges for the promotion of popular participation. Identification and implementation of innovative financial mechanisms as a source of relevant funds in the fight against poverty was an issue of great importance to the Government of Brazil. With high levels of income concentration, Brazil had been currently developing new and unified programmes favouring income distribution policies, investments aiming at universalizing services of health and education, and had been promoting economic growth with social inclusion. As a result of these actions, Brazil had attained the first of the 8 millennium goals concerning the reduction of extreme poverty. Brazil was fully committed to efforts to promote corporate standards of responsibility.

LAURA THOMPSON CHACON (Costa Rica) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for the report. Costa Rica was in an area frequently affected by natural disasters. Therefore, the issue of providing education in these circumstances was important to Costa Rica. Rural areas had restricted access to education during normal times, which was further complicated during a disaster. A process was needed to prepare a plan for education during emergencies. Costa Rica had a plan for risk reduction and natural disasters. What role could be played by international organizations, like the International Strategy on Disaster Reduction, to help countries prepare such policies and plans? Costa Rica thanked the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty for the report. Costa Rica supported continued work on the topic and the mandate of the Independent Expert. Poverty had dropped in Costa Rica due to integrated plans aimed at helping those who were most vulnerable. The vision of the report was appropriate. Costa Rica asked what mechanisms might be appropriate to help to further reduce extreme poverty.

HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan) said that the Independent Expert had rightly considered extreme poverty as a combination of income poverty, human development poverty, and social exclusion. It had negative impacts on all rights and undermined all spheres of society like a domino effect. It also led to social exclusion which gravely weakened the strength of society. Extreme poverty was also seen as an important component affecting national security: it was a source of potential tension. It created a fertile condition for radicalisation of some segments of society. Discrimination against minorities and perceiving them as second class citizens was one of the issues which required urgent and effective response. The importance of international cooperation was not underestimated. But, it was seen as a short-term response. Only country-owned poverty reduction strategies could yield expected results. Extreme poverty should be integrated into national policies. If political and civil rights were respected in any society, extreme poverty could and would be eliminated in an effective manner. Azerbaijan hoped that financial institutions and developing countries would find a more useful cooperation framework which would add a new impetus to the efforts of the latter.

AMEERAJWAD OMER LEBBE (Sri Lanka) said that since 1943, education in Sri Lanka had been considered a basic right. The aim of the national education policy was to ensure universal access to quality of education. The State provided free and compulsory education at both the primary and secondary levels throughout the country and university education was free of charge. The successive Governments of Sri Lanka were committed to continue to provide educational services to all parts of the island, including the conflict affected areas in the North and the East. In the aftermath of the tragic Tsunami disaster in 2004, Sri Lanka had recorded remarkable achievements in restoring normalcy in the education sector. School attendance of children previously enrolled at Tsunami damaged schools and schools damaged through use as internally displaced persons camps had almost been brought back to normalcy. Education was not a static commodity to be considered in isolation from its greater context; it was an ongoing process and held its own inherent value as a human right. A rights-based approach to education was imperative, and the goal of a human rights-based approach to education was simple.

AMINA LEMRINI, of the Conseil Consultatif des Droits de l’Homme du Maroc, thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for the report. Many of the recommendations were similar to the report produced by the Conseil Consultatif. There had been progress made in education in Morocco. The Conseil Consultatif, working with the Government and other non-governmental organizations, had made concerted efforts to draw up a citizen’s platform. It included 30 actions on three main axes, which included raising awareness in the country. Implementing such a project was challenging.

BEATRICE SAWADOGO, of Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said that given the lateness of presentation and translation of the reports, they would address only the report of the Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations. It was necessary to ensure that the issue of current insufficient measures was raised. Any person should be made legally responsible for their actions before the law. States were responsible for the protection of their citizens. An investigative mechanism on the activities of transnational corporations had to be established.

THIERRY VIARD, of International Movement ATD Fourth World, expressed thanks to the former and new Independent Experts on human rights and extreme poverty. Extreme poverty was of great importance and was becoming even more widely acknowledged as it affected hundreds of millions of people around world. Many efforts still needed to be made; people living in extreme poverty had not been able to benefit from the strategies in place to end extreme poverty. Economic and social exclusion were two main reasons why. Extreme poverty represented a barrier to access of justice. The rights of poor people needed to be strengthened. The International Movement hoped that the new Independent Expert could clarify the issues in combating this problem, and that there would be the use of good practices to enable the draft guiding principles to be met. What ideas would be invested to encourage the participation of poor people in efforts to improve their lives?

IAN SEIDERMAN, of Amnesty International, appreciated the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and considered his framework an important and substantial contribution. Amnesty International underlined the emphasis given in the report of the State duty to protect human rights in the context of corporate activity. Amnesty International attached great importance to accountability and access to justice in respect of business activity and human rights. Holding companies accountable was one dimension that had not been fully addressed in the report. It was important to hold companies that exploited conflicts to account for violations for human rights. Amnesty International concurred with the report on access to remedies and that States should strengthen judicial capacity. It welcomed recommendations on non-judicial mechanisms. They should have appropriate resources. Soft mechanisms and grievance mechanisms had limitations.

RAFENDI DJAMIN, of International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, said, on the report on human rights and transnational corporations, that they particularly appreciated the findings on the extractive sector, which was also relevant to the practices in Indonesia, where the expansion of investment in extractive industries was followed by the expansion of prostitution that contributed to the expansive spread of HIV/AIDS. The environmental impacts of these industries had been widely reported. Local communities had to live in vulnerable situations because of the environmental degradation. The take-over of lands from local communities had involved violence such as killings and intimidations. The Special Representative was asked to develop more obligatory guidelines.

HONORE DOUMBE NKOTTO, of International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity, in a joint statement with Bischofliches Hilfswerk Misereor and Global Policy Forum, said that the current reports presented shed light on the challenges in the short term. Transnational corporations and enterprises had a duty to protect human rights as well as Governments. The organization agreed with the Special Representative’s recommendations to reduce deficits in the governance of human rights. It proposed that the solutions could be met by consultation and research with local and international experts to identify bad practices and to set minimum standards.

JENNIFER PHILPOT-NISSEN, of World Vision International, in a joint statement with International Save the Children Alliance, thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to education. Both World Vision and Save the Children had been advocating for attention to be paid to education after natural disasters. Both organizations were members of the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies which had elaborated a set of Minimum Standards to provide a global framework for coordinated action. They asked what the Special Rapporteur’s plans for the follow up on his recommendations would be, and urged him to continue to call on all States to take all possible measures to protect learning opportunities for all.

CARLOS LOPEZ, of International Commission of Jurists, expressed appreciation to the Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations for his research. The conceptual framework presented in his report was an important step forward. However it was noted that the importance of a legal framework was played down in the report. The recognition of the central role and duties of States in protecting all rights including in relation to business activities was welcomed. There was now a need for further refinement of State obligation in this regard. With regard to accountability, it was possible to outline a zone of legal risk for businesses that were complicit. Various bodies of national and international law today provided a series of clear principles, norms and mechanisms to address corporate complicity.

ANDREA CARMEN, of International Indian Treaty Council, said that the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises directly and profoundly affected the rights and survival of indigenous peoples throughout the world. The International Indian Council strongly urged the Special Representative to utilize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a framework for assessing the impacts and providing solutions to human rights abuses by transnational corporations against indigenous peoples. It was encouraged that in the ongoing consultations, the Special Representative had noted that indigenous peoples should be consulted about the human rights violations resulting from the activities of transnational corporations. The International Indian Council also expressed appreciation for the Human Rights Council’s resolution adopted at the last session on climate change, which called upon the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights to undertake a study of the relationship between climate change and human rights.

JAMAL CHAHDI, of Union de l'Action Feminine, said various organizations had agreed on the right to education and implemented various agreements. The results were noticeable through increased enrolment in schools. The success of the implementation of the agreements could be seen in the number of special clubs available, curricula and child parliaments. Improvements existed as well in the quality of education. There should be increased attention paid to the Charter of Rural Education, as well as to improve capacity and quality of education and of education facilities. Union de l’Action Feminine called for increasing rate of enrolment for rural girls and decreasing rates of illiteracy for women, and for increased accessed to school for children with disabilities.


Concluding Remarks by the Experts on the Right to Education, Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, and Human Rights and Transnational Corporations

VERNOR MUNOZ VILLABOLOS, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, in concluding remarks, said that he was grateful for the many expressions of support expressed by delegations. He noted that most of the questions were directed at the specific roles and measures in protecting education during emergency situations. In his view, part of the measures should firstly include the need to develop indicators, linked to natural disasters and the causes of discrimination in this context. Good practices needed to be developed in this regard and it was important to tackle the causes. It was urgent to develop educational plans for emergency situations which could rapidly help to reinstore education services. Emergency funds were needed in this context. It was necessary to have flexible and innovative response mechanisms.

On the specific need of girls, Mr. Munoz Villabolos said that protection measures had to be intensified, particularly when girls had a long route to go between their home and school. Codes of conduct in this regard would be welcomed. Combating impunity in conflict situations was also important. Guaranteeing access to children and combating stereotypes was important. With regard to children with disabilities, it was important to continue making progress to the global ratification of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Inclusive education for all had to be reached. Further, humanitarian activities should include a return-to-education side. The funds of the United Nations Children's Fund should also be increased in this regard. Increased funds for education were important in order to provide sufficient funds for help in emergencies situations.

MARIA MAGDALENA SEPULVEDA, Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, responding to questions, said that she was encouraged by the number of Member States of the Council who supported and were committed to further developing mechanisms to deal with extreme poverty. The notion of participation was at the centre of the human rights approach to poverty. The people living in extreme poverty were important players in policy formation and they must be involved at all levels: design, implementation and evaluation. These people should take part in all of the technical processes in the formation of policies that affected them directly. They should be part of guiding it. The implications of policy must be presented in a clear and transparent way, in a simple way so that they could participate, and they should also participate in community level stages. In her capacity as Independent Expert, she insisted that these people were able and capable to act at the local, national and international levels.

Ms. Sepulveda agreed with comments made by the delegation of France; the focus on women and children could break the cycle of poverty. Women and children suffered inproportionately from poverty, and it was important to take into account their needs. She had specific policies to recommend in this regard. She mentioned yesterday these recommendations and that they were important steps to recognize the multifaceted problem in recognizing extreme poverty. She looked forward to actively engaging in consultations on resolution 7/20. She remained fully available to interested members in discussing the possible alternative to the document and was committed to effort. She also mentioned that country visits were extremely important to the work of the Special Procedures.


JOHN RUGGIE, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, responding to comments made in the interactive dialogue, said he was asked a number of questions, which included what kind of next step would follow now regarding the corporate responsibility to respect. He said his report outlined the concept of due diligence which meant companies needed to be aware about impacts of their actions on human rights. That needed to be further developed. It required answering questions like how far could businesses in general be addressed before addressing sectoral, regional and size of businesses concerns.

Regarding the questions concerning the special needs of countries in conflict, specifically the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Ruggie said all agreed that a conflict situation was not conducive to a human rights regime as it was supposed to operate. He was open to suggestions on how to innovate and adapt in order to work in that context. He would welcome an invitation from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Security regulations and corporate law were important tools and he would welcome suggestions on their use. A large group of investors had sent a paper outlining their support for the framework suggested in his report. It was important to move on all three elements of the framework as they are interrelated and dependent.

On questions about the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Mr. Ruggie said their traditional role was advocacy and research with the aim of preventing human rights abuses. It was the primary role that NGOs could continue to play. He took exception to the suggestion that he did not look at real cases, saying that nothing was unreal about the 400 case they had researched. They were full of real people and he had heard their stories. About the issue of the complaints mechanism, he would like to finish the job that he set out to do. Going forward, the Human Rights Council might decide to proceed with a mechanism, but he would like it to wait until he had done his work and could contribute to the mechanism’s design.

____________

For use of the information media; not an official record