HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CLOSES TENTH SESSION, EXTENDING MANDATE OF INDEPENDENT EXPERT ON SOMALIA

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON

27 March 2009



Also Adopts Resolutions on Human Rights Situation in the Democratic Republic Of Congo and on Racial Discrimination, Among Others

This afternoon, the Human Rights Council concluded its tenth session after adopting seven resolutions on human rights bodies and mechanisms; racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; and on technical assistance and capacity building, notably extending the mandate of the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Somalia for six months. The report of the tenth session of the Human Rights Council was also adopted ad referendum

Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, President of the Human Rights Council, in concluding remarks, recalled that, when it opened earlier this month with a High-Level Segment, some 70 dignitaries had spoken and, for the first time in the history of the Council, the President of the General Assembly had addressed the Council. In the course of the session, the Council adopted some 34 resolutions and decisions related to various issues in the field of human rights. Most of those texts had been adopted by consensus. The Council also appointed a new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, elected four members of the Advisory Committee and had created a new mandate: the Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights.

In a resolution on the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, the Council welcomed the initiative of the Platform for Human Rights Education and Training to organize a seminar to further reflection on elements to be included in the draft declaration; and requested the Advisory Committee to submit its draft Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training to the Council for consideration at its thirteenth session in March 2010.

Concerning the Social Forum, the Council requested that the next meeting be held during 2009, in Geneva, and that it should focus on negative impacts of economic and financial crises on efforts to combat poverty; national anti-poverty programmes; and international assistance and cooperation in combating poverty; and decided that the Social Forum would remain open to the participation of representatives of United Nations Member States and all other interested stakeholders.

By the resolution on publication of reports completed by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, adopted with 29 votes in favour, 3 against, and 15 abstentions, the Council decided that all reports of the Sub-Commission mandated by the Commission on Human Rights that had been completed and submitted to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be issued as United Nations documents.

In the resolution on elaboration of complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by a vote of 34 in favour and 13 against, with no abstentions, the Council endorsed the road map adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards during the second part of its first session as a guiding framework document for all future work in that regard.

In a resolution entitled “From rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”, the Council requested the Secretary-General to examine the challenges that had impeded the work of the Group of Five Independent Eminent Experts in fully discharging its mandate in following up on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and, in that regard, requested that the Council take appropriate action in accordance with its process of review, rationalization and improvement of mandates.

Concerning assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the Council invited the Independent Expert to continue his work till the end of September 2009 and encouraged in the meantime the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to reach a comprehensive agreement with Somali Authorities on technical cooperation and human and institutional capacity building at the national and regional level in the field of human rights in Somalia.

By the resolution on situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the strengthening of technical cooperation and consultative services, adopted with 34 votes in favour, none against, and 14 abstentions, the Council welcomed the commitment of the Government to pursuing technical cooperation with the various thematic representatives and special rapporteurs; encouraged the Democratic Republic of the Congo to finalize the establishment process of a national commission for human rights; and called on the Office of the High Commissioner to increase and enhance its technical assistance programmes and activities, in consultation with the authorities.

Speaking in introduction of resolutions were Morocco, Cuba, the Czech Republic, on behalf of the European Union, South Africa, on behalf of the African Group, and Egypt, also on behalf of the African Group.

Speaking in general comments were Germany, Brazil, Chile and India.

Speaking in explanations of the vote before the vote were Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Cuba, China, Germany, on behalf of the European Union, and Chile.

Japan, Brazil and Italy spoke in explanation of vote after the vote.

Concerned countries speaking today were Somalia and Democratic Republic of Congo.

After the adoption of all resolutions under all items the Observer States Singapore, Sri Lanka, Côte d’Ivoire, Spain, Turkey, Thailand and Algeria took the floor for to make general comments.

The eleventh session of the Human Rights Council will take place in Geneva from 2 to 18 June 2009.

Action on Draft Resolutions on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.16) on the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, adopted without a vote, the Council urges all relevant stakeholders that have not yet done so to submit their responses to the questionnaire prepared by the Advisory Committee on the possible elements of the content of the declaration and to take into account existing relevant instruments; welcomes the initiative of the Platform for Human Rights Education and Training to organize a seminar to further reflection on elements to be included in the draft declaration; and requests the Advisory Committee to submit its draft Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training to the Council for consideration at its thirteenth session in March 2010.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), introducing the draft resolution regarding human rights education and training, expressed Morocco’s thanks to the co-sponsors of the draft resolution. This was a sequel to a draft resolution adopted in September. The Advisory Committee had been mandated to draft a declaration and to submit an interim report on the status of the work. The draft resolution set a deadline for the Advisory Committee to submit its report to the March session of the Human Rights Council next year. It was also mandated to organize a seminar until next March in that regard. Morocco asked all stakeholders to support the seminar. Morocco expressed its wish that the resolution be adopted by consensus as the last resolution had been. That consensus would demonstrate the commitment to this important theme.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.22) on the Social Forum, adopted without a vote, the Council stresses the need to ensure a larger participation of grass-roots organizations and of those living in poverty, particularly women, especially from developing countries, in the Social Forum sessions, and to this end considers, inter alia, the possibility of the establishment of a voluntary United Nations Fund to contribute to providing resources to these organizations so that they can participate in and contribute to the deliberations of future sessions; requests that the next meeting of the Social Forum be held during 2009, in Geneva, and decides that at its next meeting the Social Forum should focus on negative impacts of economic and financial crises on efforts to combat poverty; national anti-poverty programmes: best practices of States in implementing social security programmes from a human rights perspective; and international assistance and cooperation in combating poverty; decides that the Social Forum will meet for three working days, in order that it may devote two days of thematic discussions on the topics of the Forum, and one day to an interactive debate with relevant thematic procedures of the Council and to formulating conclusions and recommendations; requests the President of the Council to appoint the Chairperson-Rapporteur for the 2009 Social Forum bearing in mind the principle of regional rotation; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult all actors and to present a report as a background contribution for the dialogues and debates that will be held at the 2009 Social Forum; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to seek effective means of ensuring consultation and the broadest possible participation of representatives from every region, especially those from developing countries, including by establishing partnerships with non-governmental organizations, the private sector and international organizations; and invites the 2009 Social Forum to submit a report to the Human Rights Council.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), introducing draft resolution L.22, said the Social Forum was a unique space in the United Nations system where it was possible to have an open dialogue and an exchange of points of view among the members of the international community. It allowed for a broader scope of members of civil society – farmers, trade unions, and women – to participate and find a stage to be heard with regard to different items that affected them directly. However, that was not always possible due to a lack of resources and as such only representatives located in Geneva were able to attend. The draft resolution called for an increase of resources to that end and to provide the necessary resources for those organizations that were not able to participate in the Forum.

In addition, the draft resolution proposed the themes to be discussed in the next Social Forum, scheduled to be held in 2009, in particular the negative impact of the global economic and financial crises in combating poverty. The global economic and financial crises had a negative effect on the realization of fundamental human rights and especially affected poverty and the most vulnerable sectors of the populations. It was important to hold this dialogue with all sectors of society. Cuba thanked the constructive spirit shown by all delegates in the drafting of the resolution.

KONRAD SCHARINGER, (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, said the European Union engaged constructively in the discussions on the resolution, and yet had concerns about references to a possible United Nations fund in one paragraph. The European Union was committed to the enhancement of dialogue with civil society within the United Nations, but did not believe that the establishment of a new voluntary United Nations fund related only to the Social Forum was the most cost-effective way to do so. It would require additional financial and human resources from the Secretariat, which was already under strain. The European Union would have preferred no reference to the fund. Moreover, all special procedures should be treated on an equal footing in operative paragraph eleven, and thus the Social Forum should be open to all special procedure mandate holders. Nevertheless, the European Union was ready to join in consensus and to continue to participate in the work of the Social Forum in a constructive manner.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil), in a general comment, highlighted that the resolution contemplated mandating the Social Forum to focus on the economic and financial crisis’ impact on poverty at its upcoming session. The crisis was already impacting negatively on all human rights. Poverty was expected to be exacerbated by the crisis worldwide. In view of its historical efforts to alleviate poverty, Brazil was honoured to co-sponsor the resolution.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), in a general comment, thanked the Cuban delegation for presenting the resolution and pointed to the importance of the Social Forum and in particular the importance of having the broadest participation in that body. The fight against poverty was a central theme in times of crisis, and was an essential issue of concern for the President of Chile, and as such, Chile was happy to join the consensus on the draft resolution.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.33/Rev.1) on publication of reports completed by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, adopted with 29 votes in favour, 3 against, and 15 abstentions, the Council, bearing in mind that all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights, including the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, were assumed by the Council, decides that all reports of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights mandated by the Commission on Human Rights that have been completed and submitted to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights pursuant to the resolutions and decisions of the Subcommission at its fifty-eighth session be issued as United Nations documents.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (29): Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Egypt, France, Gabon, Germany, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Against (3): Brazil, India, and Mauritius.

Abstentions (15): Angola, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ghana, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, Philippines, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, and Zambia.


PETRA ALI DOLAKOVA (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union had taken the initiative of tabling this technical decision with a view to solving one of the last outstanding legacies of the former Commission on Human Rights. There were a considerable amount of expert studies on various issues left behind after the end of activity of the former Sub-Commission. Up to now, no use could be made of the studies. The Advisory Committee had made a recommendation to the Council with regard to publishing those reports. The European Union now suggested to delegations to take a decision on publishing based on two simple and objective criteria. The purpose of the draft decision was a purely technical one, namely to finally publish a very limited number of papers of the Sub-Commission, and thus clear the way for Member States to refer to them as deemed appropriate.

ACHAMKULANGARE GOPINATHAN (India), in a general comment, said that India was willing to enter in the discussion, but in that case there had been no opportunity to do so. The draft resolution was tabled during this session, only 15 days prior to the deadline and with only one consultation having taken place. India called for a vote because the resolution made no reference to an earlier decision of the Human Rights Council. India requested an update on all reports of the Sub-Commission in order to inform the Council. Thereafter, an informed decision could be taken. The European Union was trying to short circuit such a process, which led India to call for a vote.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it was unfortunate that on this procedural draft resolution the Council had to resort to a vote. No serious decision had been taken on various reports. Some discussions had taken place though no conclusions were made. There was not enough effort made on behalf of the co-sponsors to consult with a wide range of stakeholders in the drafting of this resolution; however, despite that, Bangladesh was in support of the draft resolution.

WIWICK SETYAWATI FIRMAR (Malaysia), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, took this opportunity to reaffirm Malaysia’s support for the functions of the Advisory Committee. In that context, the draft decision stemmed from a recommendation by the Advisory Committee. Malaysia was of the view that the Council could benefit from the work previously mandated by the former Commission, but was concerned that the manner in which the sponsors were trying to implement this was not entirely constructive. Malaysia would have preferred a more inclusive and cooperative approach, which would have gone a long way towards ensuring consensus. Given the resource constraints the Council faced, such texts merited consideration. Consensus could have been reached if a prudent and cautious approach could have been taken. Malaysia would therefore abstain.

VLADIMIR ZHLEGOV (Russian Federation), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it had always supported the activities of the Sub-Commission and now supported the work of the Advisory Committee. However, the request now led to a number of questions. It had not gone through the necessary process, the draft had not gone through the necessary drafting process and the necessary number of consultations had not been observed. Therefore, the Russian Federation would abstain in a vote.

DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, said Indonesia supported the work of the Advisory Committee which functioned as a think tank for the Council, and which had made a recommendation in its report to the Council to authorize all working papers submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights by the Sub-Commission. While some reports were useful some needed a better review. A more thorough consideration by the Council was necessary. Indonesia believed that sufficient time should had been given to consider this draft resolution, and for that reason Indonesia would abstain on it.

JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA, (Philippines), speaking in an explanation of vote before the vote, said more time and open discussion would have been desirable to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. More efforts to obtain consensus should have helped to reach consensus. On those grounds, the Philippines would abstain.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT, (Pakistan), speaking in an explanation of vote before the vote, said it agreed with Bangladesh. Less time had been given for consultations, but it was important to realize the importance of the work of the Sub-Commission, as well as of the Advisory Committee, and not to let the important work of the Sub-Commission go to waste. Pakistan would be voting in favour of the resolution.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS, (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of vote before the vote, said it had a very happy memory and a lot of respect for the work over decades of the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, which was fortunately not affected by the problems of the Commission, and all its publications were positive and progressive. To publish those studies would be a justice for the Sub-Commission, as its institutional memory would be safeguarded for the benefit of future generations.

However, for reasons of principle, the procedure in which the draft decision had been discussed could not be borne. The informal consultation did not take into account all opinions. There should have been broad consultation, with all views taken into account. That was the practice that all had agreed upon as part of the working methods of the Council. With a bit more effort by the main authors, the text could have been adopted without a vote. For all of those reasons, Cuba would abstain.

KE YOUSHENG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the resolution was about the work of the former Sub-Commission and the current Advisory Committee. China had no difficulties with the resolution itself, but regretted that not enough consultations had been undertaken and would therefore abstain from a vote.

Action on Draft Resolutions on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.8/Rev.1) on elaboration of complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by a vote of 34 in favour and 13 against, with no abstentions, the Council endorses the road map adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards during the second part of its first session as a guiding framework document for all future work in this regard; requests the Chairperson-Rapporteur to ensure that the outcome referred to in the roadmap is circulated in a timely manner to all stakeholders; decides that all future sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee shall be convened in a consolidated period of 10 consecutive working days; also decides that the second session of the Ad Hoc Committee will be held in October 2009; and further decides to retain this priority issue on its programme of work and to review progress at its thirteenth session.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (34): Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (13): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (0):


GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI (South Africa), introducing the draft resolution L.8/Rev.1 on behalf of the African Group, said this draft resolution was being presented on the basis of the firm conviction there was a need to strengthen and update existing international standards in the area of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including their contemporary forms and manifestations. As initially stated at the beginning of this session, the resolution was a procedural one. It was intended to recognize and support the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards established by this Council in its decision 3/103 to elaborate as a matter of priority and necessity complementary international standards in the form of either a Convention of additional protocols to, and aimed at filling the existing gaps, in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and also providing new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred. The resolution also endorsed the road map adopted by consensus, during the second part of the inaugural session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards in December 2008.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of vote before the vote, said the European Union had serious doubts about the necessity and desirability to negotiate on this text at this session. The road map adopted at the December session of the Ad Hoc Committee showed the way forward, and it was therefore not necessary to readdress this issue. In the run-up to the Durban Review Conference, at a moment when all were trying to sort out issues of concern, the authors of the resolution decided to add one more sensitive topic to the agenda. The European Union's apprehensions on the text had proved well founded. The text either reproduced previous decisions from the Ad Hoc Committee or went beyond what had been reached tentatively there. The European Union would therefore call for a vote and vote against the resolution.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that a resolution on racism should be drawn up on a consensual basis. Only on that basis would they be able to fight that scourge. The Human Rights Council had to work constructively in order to reach agreement over a resolution that was drawn up to confirm the universality of human rights.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.9/Rev.1) entitled From rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, adopted without a vote, as orally amended, the Council requests the Secretary-General to examine the challenges that have impeded the work of the Group of Five Independent Eminent Experts in fully discharging its mandate in following up on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and, in this regard, requests that the Council take appropriate action in accordance with its process of review, rationalization and improvement of mandates; takes note of the report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, in particular its work plan for the period 2009-2011, and furthermore calls on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to avail the necessary resources and support to enable the Working Group to discharge its mandate fully, in particular the undertaking of country visits and holding of public meetings with people of African descent living in the diaspora; and requests the Intergovernmental Working Group on the follow-up and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action continue its important work as mandated by Commission on Human Rights.

GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI (South Africa), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the African Group, said the current text, which was merely procedural in nature, form and content, sought to highlight the important work undertaken during the intersessional period by the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. The draft resolution recognized and appreciated the work of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, as well as the Group of Five Eminent Experts, despite the challenges that had impeded progress in the effective discharge of their mandates. The African Group held the firm view that summoning the necessary political will and good faith in tackling issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, including their contemporary forms and manifestations, was a necessary and imperative component for the total eradication of those scourges. The African Group hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, said the European Union had serious doubts about adopting a text on follow-up mechanisms to the Durban Review Conference three weeks before it took place. It was unhelpful to run parallel discussions or preclude the results of the deliberations. However, it had been possible to find language during the deliberations that remained open. The European Union also had concerns about the negative tone of the title of the resolution, which did not correspond to its contents. It was not a constructive move to run a text on this topic at this point of time. The European Union would, nevertheless, not impede consensus.

SHINICHI KITAJIMA (Japan), in an explanation of a vote after the vote, with regard to the resolution on defamation of religions, said that Japan attached great importance to the freedom of religion. Japan could not accept defamation of certain religions and people belonging to certain groups. Whenever that happened, the Government had taken action so that such an incident would not recur. Nevertheless, Japan had had to abstain on the resolution because it felt that the text could have been more balanced, by referring more clearly to all religions, and by maintaining a balance between the concepts of freedom of expression and respect for religions.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, on the draft resolution on combating defamation of religions, said that the draft resolution contained aspects that prevented Brazil from supporting it. Brazilian human rights legislation did not protect a religion per se, but provided for a person to practice a religion of his or her choice. Brazil believed that the defamation of religion should not be placed under a sociological procedure, but rather under a legal procedure. Brazil underscored the importance of treating any religious or faith-based issue on the same footing in which that phenomena was established.

Action on Draft Resolutions on Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building

In a resolution entitled assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council invites the Independent Expert to continue his work till the end of September 2009, without prejudice to the relevant provisions of Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1; encourages in the meantime the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to reach a comprehensive agreement with Somali Authorities on technical cooperation and human and institutional capacity building at the national and regional level in the field of human rights in Somalia; calls upon the international community to stand by the legitimate Somali institutions and to provide adequate, timely and tangible support in order to enhance their capacity as part of an integrated approach; requests the Secretary-General to provide the Independent Expert with all necessary human, technical and financial assistance in carrying out his mandate; and requests the Independent Expert to present an update to his report at its twelfth session in September 2009.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), introducing draft resolution L.12 on behalf of the African Group, said human capacity and institution-building was the only way forward to meet the tremendous challenges that Somalia was facing. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur would be extended for six months, allowing the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to reach a greater agreement. This draft resolution would give Somalia a new way forward. There were some stable areas in Somalia, and the role of the Human Rights Council was to expand them by technical cooperation and assistance, and not allow extremists to reduce them by their venom. The international community had to help Somalia to not end up in a quagmire that would not only threaten human rights in Somalia, but also in the entire area. Somalia should be given a chance with the Council extending a hand of support to give the Somali people hope, peace, and a chance to make a valuable contribution to the international community.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), on behalf of the European Union, speaking in a general comment, said that the European Union was deeply concerned about the grave human rights situation in Somalia. The European Union reiterated its call and its commitment for a peaceful resolution of the Somalia conflict. The mandate of the Independent Expert had proved to be a useful tool. The European Union realized that there had been obstacles to the carrying of the mandate. The European Union reiterated its commitment to maintaining country mandates. Such mandates should be renewed for at least a year. In this particular situation, the African Group had decided to re-examine the mandate in six months. That short renewal did not constitute a precedent and the European Union looked forward to an extension of one full year.

YUSUF MOHAMED ISMAIL (Somalia), speaking as a concerned country, on the draft resolution on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, expressed gratitude to the African Group, the Arab Group, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the European Union for their cross-border support. There was now a favourable opportunity in the country with the establishment of a new Government. However, if the present Government also failed to fulfil its duty due to the lack or delay in support from the international community it should not be the only one to bear the blame. Technical and capacity-building assistance were absolutely vital in this phase. Somalia, welcomed the work of Mr. Bari, the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Somalia, and the extension of his mandate, as long as the people of Somalia called for it.

Somalia was not a black hole; there were two regions that were relatively stable. With regard to the situation of human rights, despite concerns expressed by the international community and the tireless efforts of the Government together with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to obtain capacity-building in the country, the approach was in line with the outdated efforts of the United Nations. A last minute farsighted compromise had recently been established. Somalia, expressed its deepest gratitude to the High Commissioner for her sensitivity and respect provided to Somalia in that regard. Somalia also made a strong appeal for a bilateral cooperation in all the relevant fields.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.3) on situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the strengthening of technical cooperation and consultative services, adopted with 33 votes in favour, none against, and 14 abstentions, the Council welcomes the commitment of the Government to pursuing technical cooperation with the various thematic representatives and special rapporteurs; notes with satisfaction the decision to establish a national agency to combat sexual violence against women and children; encourages the Democratic Republic of the Congo to finalize the establishment process of a national commission for human rights; notes the report of the seven thematic special procedures on technical assistance to the Government and urgent examination of the situation in the east of the country (A/HRC/10/59) drawn by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons on behalf of the other six Special Rapporteurs, and invites them to report again to the Council at its thirteenth session; calls on the international community to increase the various forms of assistance requested by the Democratic Republic of the Congo with a view to improving the human rights situation; invites the Government to inform and update the Council, at its future sessions, on the human rights situation on the ground, specifying the difficulties it experiences and its relevant needs; takes note of the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the activities carried out by the High Commissioner’s Office in the country (A/HRC/10/58) and invites the Office to report again to the Council at its thirteenth session; calls on the international community to support the establishment of a local cooperation mechanism by the Government, the United Nations High Commissioner and the Human Rights Section of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and calls on the Office of the High Commissioner to increase and enhance, through its presence in the country, its technical assistance programmes and activities, in consultation with the authorities.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (33): Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (0):

Abstentions (14): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.


A vote was held to amend the text, with amendments proposed by Germany on behalf of the European Union, but was not passed, with 18 votes in favour of the amendments, 8 abstentions and 21 against the proposed text.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (18): Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Against (21): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa.

Abstentions (8): Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Jordan, Mauritius, Senegal, and Zambia.


AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), introducing the resolution on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group had conducted its negotiations in a purely open and transparent manner. They had waited for the comments of other groups, and had only submitted the text two days before the deadline although the text on L.1 had been submitted nine days before without waiting for African input. The text did not shy away from the difficulties facing the Democratic Republic of Congo. Africa was not disbanding the work of the thematic rapporteurs, it was inviting them to continue their work. The work did not need to be against the Democratic Republic of Congo to be adopted by consensus. The Council, at the peak of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, had abolished the mandate. The text expressed the Council's support for the efforts of the Government for rehabilitation and rebuilding the country, and also gave a positive message that the international community was watching the situation and wished to help. The text should be adopted by consensus.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, said that the already dire situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had further deteriorated so that the Council had had to convene special sessions on the subject. Only recently, the Christmas massacres had left over 900 dead, often hacked to death with machetes. The European Union remained seriously concerned about the human rights situation on the ground. This Council had to seriously address the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and give support to the country in compliance with the institution-building package. The European Union had introduced another draft resolution than the one that was discussed now. Since the Council could not vote on that one now for procedural reasons, the European Union wished to make amendments, which it was now tabling.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), in a general comment, called on the Council to reject the package of amendments proposed. Those were elements that had been discussed with the European Union already; however, the amendments proposed changed the scope of the resolution. Despite all the good will and the discussion beforehand, the African Group called on Member States to oppose the package of amendments proposed by Germany on behalf of the European Union.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), in a general comment, said the Council found itself in a situation that for anybody with any kind of information was serious. The Council had met and adopted resolutions, had asked for a group of advisers to go to a country where there were situations it had condemned. It was difficult not to condemn repeated violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law. African lives needed to be protected, as did their human rights. It was difficult not to condemn the acts of violence, violation of human rights and abuses committed by all parties to the conflict. The Council needed to think about its responsibility as a body with regard to what was happening, and its ability to condemn and support situations in this case.

The Council had already sent a group of mandate-holders, and that group had already reported and was continuing its activities with regards to follow-up. Each Member State should appeal to its conscience regarding what was happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and look at the issue from the point of view of being the Human Rights Council and not a political body.

SEBASTIEN MUTOMB MUJING (Democratic Republic of Congo), speaking as a concerned country, said that most of the issues that were a cause of concern to the Congolese people and the international community thankfully were much less of concern owing to recent events. A new era was beginning now. Armed conflicts were the basis of gross violations of human rights and entailed poverty. Peace, security and development were the priority focus of the Congolese Government. This was the way one should interpret the action plan that was being implemented with the support of external partners so that the east of the country would be able to get back on its feet.

A campaign against corruption and impunity had utmost priority, as well as the end of atrocities committed and the use of rape as a weapon. Of course, a lot of work had to be done to deal with the victims of those acts. Mechanisms had been set up, such as the agency for women and children who had been victims of rape and victims of displacement. A new era was beginning in their lives. The international community had to have confidence in the determination of the Congolese Government. The Government intended to implement all possible measures and the recommendations of the Special Rapporteurs would be examined with a view to implementation. The Government would undertake this task in the way it always had, bilaterally and multilaterally. There were several mechanisms, including a human rights mechanism that would be used, as soon as it was up and running. The Democratic Republic of Congo came up at the end of this year for Universal Periodic Review. It invited the members of the Council to see the real determination of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to cooperate with all parties of the United Nations without being submitted to pressure. The Democratic Republic of Congo was determined to ensure that this resolution was adopted by consensus.

KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), on behalf of the European Union, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, while acknowledging the need for a sustainable solution to the crisis, said they remained seriously concerned about the dire situation on the ground. The recruitment of child soldiers by armed groups and the widespread acts of sexual violence committed on women and children remained a concern, which therefore resulted in the proposed amendments proposed by Germany on behalf of the European Union. Despite genuine efforts to negotiate on the text, the European Union was not persuaded that the present resolution accurately reflected the situation on the ground, and furthermore did not adequately reflect resources required for technical assistance, and for that reason the European Union Member States would abstain on the vote.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking in an explanation of vote before the vote, said there was no doubt that this resolution gave the Council a path, even though it may not be complete. In view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it was necessary to maintain the mechanisms as proposed by Egypt. Although Chile would have preferred a more complete text, it would be voting in favour of the draft resolution.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy), speaking in an explanation of vote after the vote on the extension of the mandate on Somalia, said that Italy was deeply concerned regarding the human rights sit in Somalia. Concerning the mandate of the Independent Expert on Somalia, the initiative was taken over by the African Group with the strong inclusion of Somalia. Italy thanked the Ambassador of Somalia in Geneva for his cooperation. Italy recognized that the mandate of the Independent Expert might require further consideration by the Council six months from now.

Report of the Human Rights Council

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV, Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, said the report of the Council contained the procedural content of their work, and the proceedings of today’s meeting would be available in the next report. During the tenth session the Council had heard from some 70 dignitaries during the high-level segment, and addressed thematic issues and specific cases of human rights situations all over the world, among other things.

General Statements

SYED NOURDDIN (Singapore) said Singapore deeply regretted the Council's decision to adopt L.33/Rev.1. The need to first obtain an update on the entire body of reports had been indicated. The action by the co-sponsors in the face of clear disagreement by a number of negotiators was regretted, and their hasty act had called into question this so-called United Nations document. The Institution-Building Package was thus called into question.

ULM JAUHAR (Sri Lanka) said with regard to resolutions L.20 and L.33/Rev.1, that no country-specific resolutions should be adopted except with the consent of the country concerned, or in sui generis conditions. Unconstructive, unbalanced and unhelpful resolutions were counter-productive. The work of the former Sub-Commission was appreciated, but more time should have been given to consider the resolution on adopting its outstanding reports before its submission.

PORQUET KABLAN (Côte d’Ivoire) said with regard to resolution L.32, it would have been a good idea to look at the role and responsibility of medical and other health personnel in the prevention of inhuman, cruel, and degrading treatment, in particular with regard to migrants and asylum-seekers who were held in detention. They were often kept for a long time in administrative detention, and that could often be considered inhuman, cruel, and degrading treatment. Côte d’Ivoire would be submitting a draft resolution on the rights of migrants and inhuman, cruel, and degrading treatment.

PERE MARZABAL MARTINEZ (Spain), speaking on resolution L.31 on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism, thanked Mexico for presenting that text, which kept the issue on the Council's agenda. Spain had been able to join the consensus in that regard. However, it was regretted that there was one essential element missing in the resolution. Spain had always trusted that the resolution would this year bring in this element, and would continue to work for the reality of victims of terrorism to be shared by the Council.

FATIH ULUSOY (Turkey), addressing the resolution on the Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights, said that the changes as orally revised in the resolution were welcomed, but this new mandate could constitute unnecessary duplication of existing mandates. Turkey maintained a cautious approach to this mandate, and hoped its scope would be kept to issues that were not covered by other mandates.

VIJAVAT ISARABHAKDI (Thailand), speaking on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, was concerned that that resolution failed to give recognition to the positive developments in that country. It was incumbent upon Myanmar to do its part and continue to do its best to improve the situation for the population, but the international community should provide incentives in that regard, including encouragement to do more. The resolution fell short of expectations, and would not contribute to the goals and objectives that all shared. It should provide space and incentive for Myanmar to continue the dialogue.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said the consciences of the members of the Council to which an appeal had been made this evening, if they were to be selective in sharing their objections, would be calculated as non-consciences.

Closing Remarks by President of the Human Rights Council

MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI, President of the Human Rights Council, in his concluding remarks, recalled that the Human Rights Council opened its tenth session earlier this month with the High-Level Segment, during which some 70 dignitaries, including Vice Presidents, Ministers and other high officials of Governments honoured the Council with their presence. Each of the distinguished visitors had seized opportunity of the annual event to make far-reaching statements on various human rights issues in general and the Council’s work in particular. A great number of those personalities also made important policy statements on the advancement of human rights and shared good practices worthy of the Council’s sober reflection. It was particularly significant that, for the first time in the history of the Council, the President of the General Assembly had addressed the Council, stressing “the need to ensure a more synergetic approach when addressing human rights issues”. It was particularly satisfying that the President of the General Assembly had acknowledged the Council as a de facto permanent body which “had provided insightful and meaningful input to the Assembly’s discussion on emerging issues of great concern”.

In the course of the session, the Council had adopted some 34 resolutions and decisions related to various issues in the field of human rights, Mr. Uhomoibhi noted. Most of those texts were adopted by consensus, while others were decided on votes. The Council also appointed a new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, elected four members of the Advisory Committee and, created a new mandate – the Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights. The session had addressed thematic issues and specific cases of human rights situations in all corners of the world. In public and private meetings, the Council had discussed, in an open, democratic and frank manner, each one of those issues and situations. The Council had listened to presentations from more than twenty Special Rapporteurs and had held productive interactive dialogues with them. The Council had made efforts to further enhance the participation of National Human Rights Institutions and non-governmental organizations in its discussions, as well as in the general debates of each agenda item. The Council had also held panel discussions on three important issues, namely: human rights and disabilities; the right to food; and the rights of the child.

Mr. Uhomoibhi expressed appreciation to the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her participation in the Council’s activities. In particular, the interactive dialogue on her extensive and comprehensive annual report had generated great interest, and it was significant that a whole day had been dedicated to discuss the main issues of concern to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sixteen Universal Periodic Review outcomes were successfully and consensually adopted in the session as well. The Council had also held a constructive debate on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The follow-up to the ninth Special Session and the report of the mandate holders on the matter provided elements to evaluate the challenges before the Council since the recent conflict which affected populations in the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel. The importance of the issues under consideration in the Council contrasted with the severe budget shortages the Council was faced with. All delegations were appealed to to make further efforts, in Geneva and in New York, to address this problem. Covering all the issues relevant to human rights remained a challenge. Furthermore, he intended to start consultations with various stakeholders with a view to organizing, during the eleventh regular session, a high-level panel discussion on the situation of civilians in armed conflicts and on the protection of human rights defenders, journalists and vulnerable groups.
_________

For use of the information media; not an official record