HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS OUTCOME OF UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW ON REPORTS ON INDONESIA, UNITED KINGDOM, INDIA AND BRAZIL

Human Rights Council
MORNING

10 June 2008

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted the outcome of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review on the reports on Indonesia, the United Kingdom, India and Brazil.

Concluding the consideration of the outcome on the report on Indonesia, which began on 9 June in the afternoon, non-governmental organizations raised issues concerning West Papua and Timor Leste. They encouraged the Government to proceed with the redefinition of torture in the criminal code in accordance with the Convention against Torture

Speaking on the report on Indonesia was the Indonesian Human Rights Commission, Egypt, Franciscans International, International Non-Governmental Organizations Forum on Indonesian Development, Asian Legal Resource Centre, World Organization Against Torture, Amnesty International, and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, also speaking on behalf of the Indonesian NGO Coalition.

On the outcome on the United Kingdom, Ambassador Peter Gooderham, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the United Kingdom Government had given serious consideration to every recommendation; it had used each one to re-examine its position on the issue in question. The great majority of the recommendations had been accepted either in full or in part. Successful delivery would however require sustained efforts and political will.

In the discussion on the outcome, delegations commended the United Kingdom for the manner in which it conducted the Universal Periodic Review and for providing responses to questions and recommendations that emerged during the process. Specific concerns centred on the number of children incarcerated and pre-trial detention. Observers raised matters concerning the rights of children and pre-trial detention. They welcomed the recommendations.

Speaking on the outcome on the United Kingdom were Algeria, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Russian Federation. The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Save the Children, Amnesty International and the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

In introducing the outcome on the report on India, Swashpawan Singh, Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the delegation of India had been constituted keeping in mind the importance of the occasion as well as the broad range of issues that had been likely to come up, given the diversity and size of the country. A number of recommendations had been made by delegations and India had carefully examined them with an open mind to constructively assess how their acceptance and implementation could contribute positively to their efforts to secure human rights for their people.

In discussions on the report, delegations congratulated India for the commitment shown during the review. Noted was India’s creation of a National Plan of Action, which would encourage education about human rights. Also noted was India’s objective of protecting minorities and the way in which the country allowed the participation of civil society in the Universal Periodic Review. Observers raised issues related to torture, Dalits, sexual orientation, and the lack of independence of the National Human Rights Commission. They urged the Government of India to ratify the Conventions against Torture and on Enforced Disappearances.

Speaking on the report were Nigeria, the Netherlands, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, China, Sri Lanka, Morocco and Ghana. The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: National Human Rights Commission of India, International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Action Canada for Population and Development, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Amnesty International, International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, and Interfaith International.

On the outcome on Brazil, Márcia Adorno Ramos, Head of the Human Rights Division in the Ministry of External Relations, reiterated Brazil’s commitment to take serious account of the recommendations made, which were now in the final report, all of them accepted and acknowledged. There were still many areas in serious need of improvement and many issues still to be addressed before full realisation of human rights. Brazil faced huge challenges concerning many issues. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism constituted an innovative framework to deal with human rights defence in the multilateral system. It was evident that non-selectivity and transparency were the most efficient ways to promote true dialogue and achieve real cooperation among countries.

In the discussion on the report, delegations commended Brazil for its commitment and efforts to improving the human rights situation in the country. Specifically, work on the rights of children was cited, along with Brazil’s stated objective of developing an evaluation tool for human rights. Observers noted that Brazil had yet to implement recommendations of treaty bodies and Special Procedures. Brazil was urged to create a national human rights institution according to the Paris Principles.

Speaking on the report on Brazil were China, Canada, Nigeria, Pakistan, Switzerland, Syria and Angola. Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Conectas Direitos Humanos, Amnesty International, and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.

The Council will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to consider the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review reports on the Philippines, Algeria and Poland.


Continuation of Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review for Report on Indonesia

HESTI ARMIWULAN, of Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM), welcomed the conclusions in the report, but noted that the question on the role of the Commission and its independence was not sufficiently addressed. The Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had observed the insufficient impartiality and independence of the Commission. It was regretted that the issue on the protection of religious minorities had not been properly responded to by the Indonesian delegation. Further efforts to combat impunity should be undertaken.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group welcomed the participation of civil society in the Universal Periodic Review. The discussion or comments made should be made only on the outcome. The African Group supported the ruling of the Chair and that interventions should focus on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review. Paragraph 30 was as essential as paragraph 31 and neither could be read or viewed without the other. Comments made out of the aforementioned parameter should not be published in text or on the Internet.

MICHAEL MUTZNER, of Franciscans International, in a joint statement with Dominicans for Justice and Peace; et Pax Romana, said questions about West Papua, which were in the adopted report after changes were made to the original report and were raised by various Member States, remained unanswered. Franciscans International encouraged the Government to extend invitations to all United Nations Special Procedures, especially concerning West Papua. It called on the Government of Indonesia to not delay any further the adoption of a definition of torture in the Criminal Code, in accordance with the Convention against Torture. The Government should urgently ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The Government must in accordance with its international organizations prosecute those responsible for gross violations on human rights in Timor Leste.

ATNIKE SIGIRO, of International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, in a joint statement with Pax Romana, said that despite the continuing practice of political blocking of views presented by some members of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group, they had appreciated the work of the Working Group. Several human rights issues had been raised during the process, such as impunity, indigenous peoples and the situation in Papua. However, there had been several questions that had not been adequately addressed. Additional voluntary commitments should include the incorporation of torture as a gross violation of human rights into the criminal code and to combat impunity by improving the legal institutional framework in order to have a credible human rights court.

NORMAN VOSS, of the Asian Legal Resource Centre, welcomed the acknowledgement of many of the serious human rights concerns in Indonesia within the Universal Periodic Review process, including the need for the criminalization of torture. The Asian Legal Resource Centre regretted the lack of any clear agreement on the part of the Government to take decisive, timely action concerning this issue and further regretted the lack of commitments by the Government to address the problems of impunity and the ongoing violations in Papua as a result of the Universal Periodic Review process. The Centre welcomed the offer to include criminal investigation units from the national police in future Council and treaty body sessions.

ROLIN WAVRE, of World Organization against Torture, in a joint statement with Human Rights First, said the report of Indonesia focused on plans and institutions and not on their impact. The Indonesia Human Rights Commission had been severely limited in recent years due to an impasse between the military and parliament. The Truth and Friendship Commission was unable to assign individual responsibility or recommend prosecution. The Government should adopt the criminal code to have a clear definition of torture and appoint appropriate penalties. The authorities should take measures to end impunity. Perpetrators of human rights violations had been promoted. The Government should protect human rights defenders. Law 13 of 2006 on Protection of Witnesses and Victims should be fully funded.

MARIANNE LILLIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, welcomed the call on the Government to support and protect the work of human rights defenders. In Papua they worked in a climate of fear and their work was hampered by security personnel. The Government was called upon to guarantee the rights to freedom of expression and assembly in the Papua and Maluku provinces and to ensure that the police and military were aware of the legitimate role of human rights defenders and their responsibility to protect them. The Government had consistently failed to bring to justice those responsible for gross human rights violations. The Government must ensure that full and independent investigations were carried out.

RAFENDI DJAMIN, of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, also speaking on behalf of the Indonesian NGO Coalition, said that they appreciated all members of the Working Group that raised critical comments reflecting the most pressing human rights issues in Indonesia. Electoral democracy and decentralisation programmes had been manipulated in Indonesia to create new oligarchies of power at the district and provincial levels, which had emerged as the greatest impediments to the full realisation of human rights at the local level. The number of Indonesians living in extreme poverty had increased significantly in the last few years despite the implementation of some pro-poor policies. They deeply regretted the decision of the Indonesian Government on June 9 2008 to partially ban Ahmadiyah activities which violated the Indonesian Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This decision would become the justification for religious extremist groups to attack the Ahmadiyah followers and pro-pluralism groups. They urged the Government of Indonesia to implement the recommendations contained in the Working Group report, in addition to the recommendations made by all United Nations human rights bodies.

I GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA, Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, extended his gratitude to participating stakeholders for their active involvement leading to the adoption of the report of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group. Indonesia valued the inputs during the discussion, including those of civil society. Most of the points raised had been sufficiently addressed in Indonesia’s previous statement. The National Human Rights Commission was a strong commission. It was funded by the State but had never been prevented from criticising the Government in any forum, including the Human Rights Council. The Ahmadiayah needed extra caution. The Government had never intervened in interpreting religious doctrine or limiting religious freedom in the country. Indonesia fully supported the Universal Periodic Review. The Universal Periodic Review placed all countries on an equal footing. The exercise was an opportunity for the Government to take stock of the current position in the human rights field as well as a chance to test the efficiency of this mechanism

Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review for Report on the United Kingdom

PETER GOODERHAM, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations Office in Geneva, said that the Government of the United Kingdom had given serious consideration to every recommendation; it had used each one to re-examine its position on the issue in question. The great majority of the recommendations had been accepted either in full or in part. Successful delivery would however require sustained efforts and political will. Further development of human rights was seldom an easy or straightforward option for governments, especially when, as in the United Kingdom, it was necessary to protect public safety and national security, whilst ensuring full respect for human rights. However it was believed that that endeavour was a vital test for good governance. The approach of the United Kingdom had always been that the Universal Periodic Review offered a genuine opportunity for States to take a serious, self-critical look at their own human rights records. They had taken the challenge seriously and they had not avoided discussing areas which they found difficult. The questions and recommendations that were presented to them had been challenging but constructive. The next Universal Periodic Review round was seen as even more important. That was when they could hope to see definite signs that the enjoyment of human rights was a regular reality in people’s lives everywhere in the world.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that Algeria appreciated the responses of the delegation of the United Kingdom to the Universal Periodic Review conclusions and in particular to the five recommendations made by Algeria. Algeria commended the willingness of the United Kingdom to engage in dialogue in addressing human rights obligations and international commitments. Algeria thanked the United Kingdom for accepting to address the high incarceration rate of children; however they encouraged the United Kingdom to review more thoroughly the painful techniques applied to children and to harmonize them with their human rights obligations. Algeria thanked the United Kingdom for acknowledging that legislation on freedom of expression and opinion should be in harmony with human rights obligations. They regretted that no action was taken on the recommendation to accede to the International Convention on Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Further, Algeria regretted that there was no acceptance of the recommendation to facilitate access to prisons by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) congratulated the United Kingdom and welcomed the open spirit that the United Kingdom demonstrated. It was a worthy model to all countries. Nigeria encouraged all countries to emulate the United Kingdom. It was pleased that the United Kingdom recognized that economic, social and cultural rights were as important as other rights and that all rights were universal, interdependent and indivisible. Nigeria looked forward to the follow up of this review in four years time.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan) said that the United Kingdom had taken a decision not to respond to the recommendations during the review. Their answers presented today were thus welcomed. The United Kingdom’s willingness to accept most of the recommendations indicated that it accepted to take them seriously into account. The number of recommendations that had not been accepted had also found explanations in today’s provided answers. It was hoped that the United Kingdom would continue to harmonize and implement laws in line with international human rights norms.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said that the United Kingdom was one of the first countries to go through the Universal Periodic Review process. It was a complicated task that was made simplified and the majority of them had been successfully resolved. The Russian Federation noted with satisfaction that the United Kingdom had accepted many of the recommendations made by the Russian Federation, and that they also answered questions on substantive matters. There were no ideal countries from the point of view of human rights. The United Kingdom was one of the oldest democracies in the world, and was confronted with one of the most important problems dealt with by States today—that of terrorist attacks.

ROBERTA CECCHETTI, of International Save the Children Alliance, called on the Government of the United Kingdom to protect children’s rights. It must withdraw reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Save the Children urged the Government to introduce legislation banning physical punishment in the home. It said poverty was unacceptably high. The Government must fully protect asylum seeking children. The juvenile justice system continued to violate standards of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Save the Children urged the Government to respect the privacy of children in trouble with the law. It urged the Government to accept all recommendations made in the course of the Universal Periodic Review and to commit to implement them urgently and to report to the Human Rights Council annually.

MARIANNE LILLIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, welcomed many of the recommendations that had been addressed to the United Kingdom, including the call to review all counter-terrorism legislation to ensure that it complied with the highest human rights standards; and to reduce, rather than to extend still further, the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects. Given the prominence of the issue of counter-terrorism in the interactive dialogue, it was surprising that recommendations had not more specifically referred to the United Kingdom reliance on so-called diplomatic assurances to facilitate the return of individuals to States where they faced a risk of grave human rights violations. Amnesty International believed that such assurances undermined the absolute prohibition of torture. The United Kingdom was also called on to carry out effective, independent and impartial investigations into incidents where the action of the police might have led to violations of the right to life and the right to be free from torture.

MASSOUD SHADJAREH, of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, thanked and congratulated the Council on the conclusions and recommendations that had been adopted so far. They reflected many of the concerns of the Islamic Human Rights Commission. In particular they highlighted that a secure society could not be built on compromising on due process on human rights and civil rights. The ever increasing time of pre-charge and pre-trial detention had been raised in a variety of consultations. There was particular concern since a bill to increase pre-charge detention from 28 days to 42 days was presented before parliament. The need for this had never been identified, and Britain had the longest pre-charge detention limit in a liberal democracy. The Islamic Human Rights Commission also recommended the review of anti-terrorism laws in light of the highest human rights standards. The implementation of anti terror laws resulted in racism and religious profiling which was evident in disproportional representation in stop and search statistics. The Commission congratulated the British Government in consulting with civil society as much as possible.

PETER GOODERHAM, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations Office in Geneva, thanked all who took the floor. He said several important issues were raised. Many were mentioned by the Minister in his responses to the Working Group. The United Kingdom was fully committed to civil society involvement in the follow up of the review. Pre-trial detention featured prominently during the Working Group’s session. He referred the Council to documents circulated. There was significant debate in the United Kingdom about the issue. The proposal to move to 42 days of pre-trial detention was a reserve power. It was temporary power that was subject to judicial review every seven days. The United Kingdom thanked the Ambassador of Nigeria for his comments. The distinguished representative of Pakistan also made important comments. The Russian Federation was also thanked. At the session of the Working Group, the Minister had stressed the need to protect human rights even while protecting the State. The United Kingdom thanked members of civil society. They had an important role to play in the Universal Periodic Review process. The United Kingdom was committed to implementing practical measures that over the next four years would lead to the successful delivery of the recommendations that they had accepted here today. The United Kingdom was committed to promote and protect human rights both at home and abroad. It recently published a new set of pledges and commitments to accompany their bid of re-election to the Human Rights Council. The United Kingdom pledged to work with the Human Rights Council to continue to support United Nations bodies, to work for human rights abroad and to uphold the highest standards of human rights at home.

Consideration of the Outcome of the Universal Periodic Review on the Report on India

SWASHPAWAN SINGH Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that during the Universal Periodic Review dialogue, the delegation of India had been constituted keeping in mind the importance of the occasion as well as the broad range of issues that had been likely to come up, given the diversity and size of the country. The interactive dialogue had been very rich and productive and had witnessed participation of a large number of Member States and observers. India had tremendously benefited from that process by learning how their efforts for the realisation of human rights for their own people were viewed and assessed by the international community. A number of recommendations had been made by delegations and India had carefully examined them with an open mind to constructively assess how their acceptance and implementation could contribute positively to their efforts to secure human rights for their people. The Universal Periodic Review was looked at as a continuous process and not a one-time exercise; they would pursue the implementation of recommendations that had been accepted but their commitment was not limited to them; they would continuously pursue higher norms and standards.

MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) welcomed the delegation of India and congratulated them for being one of the first few States to undergo the Universal Periodic Review process. Nigeria had a diverse and multicultural population and India’s population was very similar. Nigeria commended the achievements made in ensuring and providing for full establishment of human rights policies in India.

ROBERT-JAN SIEBEN (Netherlands) said that the Netherlands was a member of the troika for India’s report. The Netherlands congratulated India for its method of work in the Universal Periodic Review. It was grateful for India’s responses given during the session. The Netherlands urged India to inform the Council before the next Review on the progress made on recommendations it agreed to, but also on the efforts on recommendations that India did not agree to. This would be a voluntary undertaking but would be highly appreciated by the delegation of the Netherlands.

ADEL ESSA HUR AL MAHRI (United Arab Emirates) welcomed the adoption of the conclusions and recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review by India. India’s efforts to allow civil society to participate in the conclusions were welcomed. India’s decision to adhere to a number of international conventions was also welcomed, as well as the planned strengthening with regard to the protection of children and women. India was a big country with a lot of cultural diversity, thus the Council should even more appreciate all efforts undertaken by India for the eradication of poverty and for the pursuit for education and development.

MANSOUR ABDULLA SALEM AL SULAITIN (Qatar) said that Qatar was pleased to express appreciation for India’s cooperation with the Council and for engaging in the Universal Periodic Review process. India did not spare any efforts since the beginning of the review in adopting all necessary actions to implement the recommendations made. After accepting most of the recommendations from the Working Group, India had signed and ratified a number of international conventions or had lifted reservations on other treaties. An example was the acceptance of Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and adhering to the Convention on Missing Persons. India had begun work on establishing a National Action Plan for the promotion of human rights, especially of women and children. This showed the attention India attached to all forms of human rights. India’s endeavour to implement the state of law and the promotion and protection of all fundamental human rights was noted. Qatar urged India to continue this process and encouraged India to realize the recommendations made in full.

LI BAODONG (China) thanked the Ambassador of India for his presentation. His response demonstrated the importance that India attached to the Universal Periodic Review. China congratulated India for its economic growth. India had fully developed its human rights system. China appreciated the measures taken to protect minorities and those most vulnerable in India. China was convinced that in four years time, when India would undergo another Universal Periodic Review, it would show more progress in the field of human rights.

AMEER AJWAD OMER LEBBE (Sri Lanka) said that Sri Lanka appreciated the exemplary manner with which India had subjected itself to the new Universal Periodic Review. India’s open, frank, constructive and practical approach in responding to the recommendations made during the Working Group session was commended. India’s many efforts and initiatives in the promotion and protection of human rights had been recognized as examples of best practices by many delegations during the interactive dialogue. Sri Lanka understood India’s views that the lack of adequate resources and insufficient national capacity in developing countries handicapped the ability of the State to secure for its population the full enjoyment of the fruits of civil and political rights. As a close friend, Sri Lanka always learned from India.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) thanked India for the clear presentation and report provided regarding the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review. India had demonstrated its commitment to human rights and to the Council. India was a model of living and dynamic policies and upholding all human rights, despite the difficulties slowing down its momentum. A National Plan of Action had been established which focused on education as a tool for promoting human rights in schools and for officials in charge of enforcing the law. In this context Morocco welcomed the efforts made by India in this area. Morocco encouraged India to continue in sustained interaction with the Human Rights Council and human rights mechanisms.

MERCY YVONNE AMOAH (Ghana) commended India for its openness during the Universal Periodic Review process. Ghana was a member of the troika for India’s report and noted the seriousness with which India undertook the exercise. This was a reflection of India’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. Ghana thanked India for the responses it submitted this morning.

ARUNA SHARMA, of the National Human Rights Commission of India, said that they had advocated for the effective participation of national human rights institutions in the Human Rights Council. The Government of India had had consultations with civil society during the Universal Periodic Review process; however, the national institution reserved its right to publish its own paper on the process. The Indian Government was further called to ratify the Convention against Torture. The right to education was also important; children should be nowhere but in schools.

GEORGINA STEVENS, of International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, in a joint statement with Pax Romana; Lutheran World Federation; and the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches, said they were pleased to note that a number of recommendations made on the report at India’s Universal Periodic Review addressed the issue of caste based discrimination. They were also encouraged to hear that more than 10 States raised specific questions or recommendations concerning caste-based discrimination. This was a strong message to the Government of India that the international community was deeply concerned about the persistence of this form of discrimination which affected more than 167 million Dalits. They requested that measures to combat severe violations of Dalit rights in the areas of access to education, health, housing and property, freedom of religion and free choice of employment be taken. Further they appealed to the Indian Government to effectively utilise the Universal Periodic Review and follow-up to the review, by strengthening the human rights education initiatives.

ARUIND NARRAIN, of Action Canada for Population and Development, in a joint statement with Federation for Women and Family Planning; ant the Latin American Committee for the Defence of Women's Rights (CLADEM), said they appreciated the statement of the Government of India. They called attention to the issue of sexual orientation. They welcomed the civilized understanding of India which if succinctly put stated that it was not homosexuality but homophobia which was a western input. They urged the Government of India to take forward this valuable historical understanding. The Government was urged to do more by enacting civil rights legislation banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

SARDAR AMJAD YOUSEF KHAN, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, welcomed the recommendations of the Working Group. The recommendation that India should ratify the Convention on Enforced Disappearances was very pertinent, because in territories under India’s control, scores of people had disappeared only to reappear in mass graves. The recommendation that India should immediately receive the Special Rapporteur on torture was also relevant. The call for extending standing invitations to all Special Procedures was also seen as important.

MARIANNE LILLIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, said that the dialogue with India highlighted a range of measures to protect human rights in the country. Amnesty International had concerns regarding the National Human Rights Commission’s lack of independence and authority and the continuing impunity of armed forces under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, issues which were both raised during the review. The National Human Rights Commission had indicated that the Government often failed to act on its recommendations to address serious human rights violations and that its own powers to enforce its recommendations were inadequate. Amnesty International called on the Government of India to uphold its commitment to establish a national human rights institution in line with the Paris Principles and to give the National Human Rights Commission more authority, a broader mandate and adequate resources.

SYED FAIZ NAQSHBANDI, of the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, welcomed the report and the outcome and recommendations of the process. The recommendations could be positively implemented if Special Procedures were allowed to visit India. It would be fine if India ratified the Convention against Torture but that alone could not be the only response. The Special Rapporteur on torture must be given access to investigate long standing allegations. This issue of impunity remained alive in many forms. The recommendations in the outcome also dealt with it. The International Islamic Federation urged for the repeal of existing laws that were contrary to international human rights standards.

AWATAR SINGH SEKHON, of Interfaith International, said that torture was a prevalent issue in India. This tool was frequently used against minorities. India should ratify the Convention against Torture and the Special Rapporteur on torture should be invited to India and be allowed unhindered access, particularly to investigate complaints in the North East of India, Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab. India should also recognise castism as a form of racism.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH, Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in concluding remarks thanked all participates for their comments in the adoption of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review. India had listened carefully to all statements made, and was encouraged by the active participation of civil society in the debate. The fact that many of the non-governmental organizations came from India to be in Geneva for the meeting illustrated the vibrant nature of civil society in India. Due to time constraints he invited participants to refer to the report and conclusions made during the interactive dialogue as he would not be able to address all comments.

India was conscious of the human rights problems in the country and that it would always be a challenging task. There were no perfect States on the grounds of human rights. An effective institutional framework was needed to address these acts. As such India had a balanced judiciary, parliament, and independent human rights commission that worked to provide the framework for human rights measures. They had clearly noted the suggestions and advice made and would give due consideration to them with an open mind. These suggestions must be addressed within the parameters of the Constitution, which was one of the most progressive constitutions in the world.

India was committed to addressing the right to development of its people. They needed to provide an environment for inclusive and accelerated progress, where they stepped up public investment to make the policies more inclusive. Many new ambitious initiatives on employment, education and health had been established. Another initiative was the right to information act, which was an important tool for people to ensure accountability of Government.

Mr. Singh said many delegations referred to the issue of discrimination regarding castes and tribes. India was fully committed to tackle any discrimination against them. Steps had been taken to empower discriminated and marginalized groups in society. India denied that they were not conscious of the existence of this phenomenon, and it was enshrined in the Constitution. Changing old mindsets required dedication and sustained efforts. The action at the Government level was not enough and as such they had been engaging with other stakeholders to address the gaps. Caste based discrimination could not be regarded as discrimination. Secularism was one of the basic features of the Constitution. India was a diverse society, home to almost all religions in the world and they take immense pride in that. The Constitution enshrined the protection and the welfare of all minorities.

Mr. Singh thanked all delegations and members of civil society for the constructive engagement with Council as it had been a positive experience. India’s vibrant democratic policies would continue to pursue higher forms and standards for its people and India looked forward to continuing the review to ensure that these human rights standards were pursued for all.

Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review on Report on Brazil

MARCIA ADORNO RAMOS, Head of the Human Rights Division in the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil, thanked the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It was a great opportunity to be here to present the human rights situation in Brazil and the efforts by the Government to promote, protect and guarantee human rights in an environment of constructive and frank dialogue. It was a great honour to be engaged in the whole process. Brazil was happy to see the successful conclusion of the first Universal Periodic Review-cycle. Brazil strongly believed that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism constituted an innovative framework to deal with human rights defence in the multilateral system. It was evident that non-selectivity and transparency were the most efficient ways to promote true dialogue and achieve real cooperation among countries.

The Brazilian delegation which came to Geneva for the presentation of the report was broad and representative. During the interactive dialogue, 47 States from all five regional groups commented on the report. Such participation signified that human rights were a common concern for all. She reiterated Brazil’s commitment to take serious account of the recommendations made, which were now in the final report, all of them accepted and acknowledged. There were still many areas in serious need of improvement and many issues still to be addressed before the full realisation of all human rights. Brazil faced huge challenges concerning many issues. The year 2008 would be an important year for the promotion of human rights. The 11th National Conference on Human Rights would take place next December and would be a major step toward a comprehensive evaluation of human rights challenges.

Important events both at the national and international scope were being organized by the Government of Brazil and civil society to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. At the Human Rights Council, Brazil would launch a set of human rights voluntary goals by December 2008. It expected that a consensual resolution during the next session of the Council regarding children would be adopted. The outcome of the Universal Periodic Review process had been very positive for Brazil. Brazil’s commitments before the Human Rights Council would mean concrete actions. Brazil thanked all countries for their participation and expressed gratitude to the troika. Brazil reiterated its voluntary commitments and its support for the Human Rights Council.

ZHANG YI (China) said that China appreciated the serious attitude with which the Brazilian Government had answered to the conclusions and recommendations that came out of the Universal Periodic Review. In recent years, the Government had made significant improvements in many areas. The active promotion of a gender perspective was also noted. China further appreciated the open and frank attitude with which Brazil was dealing with human rights issues.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) congratulated Brazil for the seriousness with which it had conducted the Universal Periodic Review and particularly for having allowed the participation of civil society in the reporting process. Canada acknowledged the great strides that Brazil had taken towards the full respect of human rights, and the frankness with which Brazil had recognized the challenges that it, like all countries, still had to overcome. In particular, Canada supported Brazil’s resolution to adopt internal evaluation tools for human rights and encouraged the country to implement concretely the recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review process through effective public policies.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria) said Nigeria congratulated Brazil for its participation in the Universal Periodic Review. The efforts of Brazil were commendable. Nigeria hoped that the efforts would help quicken the full enjoyment of human rights by all in Brazil. The Universal Periodic Review was an important mechanism for the protection and enjoyment of human rights. Nigeria called on all delegations to provide help that Brazil needed to achieve its human rights goals.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan) said that Brazil had invested great human capital to improve human rights and urged it to continue its improvements with regard to the situations of indigenous people, human rights defenders and social inequality. Further, Brazil should closely cooperate with the international community to resolve all these issues. In its strategy for the promotion of human rights, Brazil should take into account the issues of climate change and the right to food.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said Switzerland was in a good position to observe the commitments by Brazil during the Universal Periodic Review process. The way Brazil accepted the 50 recommendations showed it had very lofty views to pursue addressing the human rights situation in the country. Switzerland specifically noted and commended the work on children which was mentioned in several different contexts. Children were a very vulnerable group and Switzerland welcomed the commitments and programmes accepted. Brazil had launched a number of impressive National Action Plans. At the national level, the human rights indicators showed the interest of the Government in following up and translating policies into real action.

ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) expressed appreciation for the transparency and collaboration of Brazil. Brazil’s acceptance and endorsement of the various difficult recommendations was a clear testimony of its determination to promote and protect human rights. Brazil needed encouragement to fulfil its commitments and Syria called on Member States to help through assistance and engagement, rather than negligence and alienation.

ARCANJO MARIA DO NASCIMENTO (Angola) welcomed Brazil’s efforts to improve in a concrete manner the situation of human rights in the country. Brazil was showing great engagement to improve human rights by subscribing themselves with voluntary commitments in order to create new tools to monitor human rights. The policies undertaken to improve the life of African descendants in Brazil were welcomed. The fact that Brazil considered the right to education as a fundamental tool for the fight against poverty and social exclusion was noted with satisfaction. The engagement in order to reduce poverty and social inequality was appreciated. The policies embraced by the Government aimed at strengthening the quality of life of the Brazilian people; they were an important step for social development and were fundamental to improve, promote, monitor and respect human rights.

CAMILA LISSA ASANO, of Conectas Direitos Humanos, said that they had participated in all phases of the Brazilian Universal Periodic Review. They welcomed all the corrections made to the final report. Most important to them were the answers to a number of questions asked that the report did not reflect. They asked in reference to paragraph 81 of the final report, how would Brazil implement not only the 15 Universal Periodic Review recommendations, but also the almost 300 recommendations made by the treaty bodies and the Special Procedures? They asked how would the Government take these recommendations and transform them into public policies. They also asked how civil society participated in implementing these recommendations. They urged the Government of Brazil to answer the questions without delay.

MARIANNE LILLIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, said the report submitted by Brazil and its presentation at the Universal Periodic Review Working Group focused on a general defence of existing government programmes and policies rather than an actual analysis of the effectiveness of such measures to address human rights violations and whether additional measures were needed. During the review a number of States raised key issues and challenges. Brazil responded by describing initiatives undertaken or planned by the Government. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions highlighted the extent of problems faced in this area. Recommendations made during the review called on Brazil to evaluate with rigour initiatives and activities designed to address violations of human rights. Amnesty International called on the Government to thoroughly investigate all allegations of torture and reports of killing, including by police.

ANNE-SOPHIE YOUNG, of the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, welcomed that fact that the Brazilian Government agreed with the view that States had to abide by mechanisms to implement human rights. It was however important to note that the federal Government was the main duty-bearer. Brazil was urged to establish a national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. Of particular concern was the racial discrimination being faced by Afro-descendants. The creation of three ministries dealing with human rights was praised. Brazil was urged to immediately implement its national policy for the prevention and mediation of urban land conflicts, currently under review. Further, forced evictions remained a major problem in the country.

MARCIA ADORNO RAMOS, Head of the Human Rights Division in the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil, in concluding remarks, thanked all national delegations and civil society for their comments made to assist in improving human rights in Brazil. With respect to the questions about civil society’s involvement, the statement Brazil made was clear: it had always been open to work closely with civil society throughout the process. The National and Working Group reports both reflected further steps that must be taken to tackle the problems concerning human rights. The main objectives were the development of human rights indicators that would help Brazil to improve and fine tune the human rights policies that were currently underway. The policy on human rights defenders was a main policy in Brazil and had not been reflected on in the final report of the Working Group. The Government effectively introduced an action plan to prevent threats of vulnerability and work towards effective policies amongst others. They had pilot projects underway to protect these people in several areas. These pilot projects would give them a hint at how the national progress could be improved all over the country. This was addressed by the President in 2007 and a legal framework had already been established to address it. The rationalization of all sectorial programmes was underway in various areas, addressing victims and witnesses, the human rights defenders protection programme, and children protection programme. Brazil was grateful for the efficient support the secretariat gave it during the whole process of the Universal Periodic Review examination and hoped to continue cooperation over the next four years.

____________

For use of the information media; not an official record