Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Human Rights Council
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES INTERACTIVE DEBATE ON REPORTS ON RIGHTS TO HEALTH, FOOD AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
12 March 2008
Share
Human Rights Council
MORNING 12 March 2008
The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its interactive debate on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said in concluding remarks that with regards to questions posed on the draft guidelines on pharmaceutical companies, he recalled that his report stated the intention for States to adopt these guidelines. Pharmaceutical companies had a major impact on the right to health, often it was positive, but something it was not. The guidelines were aimed for these companies to improve their activities, and to especially benefit those living in poverty. Responding to questions on how to engage more with health workers, he noted that there was a willingness of the health workers to learn, but it was necessary to spell out to them how they could improve their work and States should raise human rights at health meetings, such as at the World Health Organization Assembly.
Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said in concluding remarks that concerning the role of trans-national corporations on the right to food, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development had made an inventory of 85,000 transnational companies and the five largest ones were much more powerful in terms of annual revenue than most countries in the world. They were beyond the control of this Council. One positive step to reducing the power of multinational corporations was the guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on human rights and multinationals, which should be signed by as many Governments as possible. The Human Rights Council had not yet focussed on this problem and had accepted to prepare an inventory of ombudsmen and officials but there was a great need for a regulatory framework and a Special Rapporteur on this issue as these non-state actors had become incredibly powerful in recent years.
Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said in concluding remarks that on freedom of expression and the respect of religion, many delegations had pointed out the importance of exercising this right with care. Freedom of expression was not absolute. He had often recalled this. Infringing this was not creating a peaceful dialogue between communities. Various existing legal frameworks could offer remedies to this problem. He agreed that cases of expression of hate against religions had to be vehemently condemned. On the criminalization of defamation, there was an annex in his report about this topic. On the issue of the Danish cartoon, he had made a visit to Denmark, and had made a report on this topic in the past.
The three Special Rapporteurs presented their reports to the Council on 11 March in the afternoon. For more details, see press release HRC/08/20.
In the interactive dialogue, delegations praised the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food as this right was one of the most fundamental human rights. Some speakers praised his mission to Cuba, and Cuba’s cooperation with his mandate. The role of developed countries which distorted market prices was raised as a factor which prohibited developing countries from fulfilling the right to food of their peoples. The right to food should take precedence over all other rights, with the exception of the right to life. With the number of hungry people around the world reaching close to one billion and the figure of 6 million deaths a year for children under the age five, urgent action was needed. The role of transnational corporations affecting implementation of the right to food was also raised. Global food challenges, climate change, urbanization and the widening gap between developed and developing countries were found to be mega-trends which had ramifications on the right to food. African States had been dealt an unfair hand by international financial institutions, and had seen food security deteriorate with the imposition of structural adjustment programmes and adverse weather conditions.
On the right to freedom of opinion and expression, some countries urged the Special Rapporteur and the Council to counter what they called the negative development of the increasing scope of defamation laws. Violations of these rights continued around the world as people who wished to exercise them continued to be intimidated, harassed and abused. The right to freedom of expression was an essential and fundamental principle of any democratic and free society. Others stressed that the exercise of the freedom of opinion and expression should not affect the rights of others. The Council should take a serious look at the right to freedom of expression in line with the respect of other’s cultural diversities. While the Special Rapporteur believed that the monitoring of State media was an illegal act, there were, however, a number of problems related to child pornography and the defamation of religions, which warranted such monitoring. Freedom was not an absolute or infinite freedom. It had to be exercised with responsibility and respect to others and particular attention had to be paid so that this right did not cause incitement to racial or religious hatred. One’s right to freedom of opinion and expression must not trample on the human rights of others and their dignity.
With regards to the right to health, speakers urged different United Nations bodies to work more coherently together, because sometimes the work of the World Trade Organization and others affected national efforts to ensure the right to health. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should be approached to sensitize them to the occasionally negative effects of their programmes. It was underscored that through strengthening health system, it would be possible to secure sustainable development. States had a fundamental responsibility to ensure the right to health, but at the same time, international cooperation was an obligation in this area, as had emerged in different United Nations conferences.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue this morning were the delegations of Tunisia, Côte d’Ivoire, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Nicaragua, Iran, Peru, the Russian Federation, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belgium, Viet Nam, Switzerland, Thailand, Syria, Australia, Germany, Morocco, the Maldives, Sudan, Canada, Nigeria, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Belarus, Luxembourg, Bangladesh, Israel, Angola, South Africa and Malaysia. Representatives of the United Nations Population Fund, the African Union, and the Ugandan Human Rights Commission also provided statements.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Federation of Cuban Women, Foodfirst Information and Action Network, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Amnesty International, Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; and Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Human Rights Advocates, Centrist Democratic International, Reporters without Borders - International and International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements.
Sri Lanka and Ukraine spoke in right of reply.
The Council today is meeting in three back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. When the Council concluded its morning meeting at noon, it immediately started its midday meeting during which it will consider the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders, on violence against women, its causes and consequences, and on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights.
Interactive Debate on Reports on Right to Health, to Food, and to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
BELHASSEN MASMOUDI (Tunisia), on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, welcomed the effective work that Jean Ziegler had been undertaking to help eradicate hunger worldwide. His report covered a number of cross-cutting issues which should combine efforts to the objectives set. Tunisia was firmly committed to the principles of human rights and the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and had for decades made sure that its citizens enjoyed the right to food. One of Tunisia’s main goals was eliminating the phenomenon of poverty in order to ensure growth and support social treatment leading to social protection for the poorest. Tunisia had a 3.8 per cent poverty rate as of 2007, as a result of its efforts in this regard.
NIANGORANH KABLAN ALAIN PORQUET (Côte d’Ivoire) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to food Jean Ziegler for his remarkable work on one of the most fundamental human rights, the right to food, which they considered as akin to the right to life. The Special Rapporteur’s commitment had taught the world that there were still many hurdles to overcome with regards to food security, which oftentimes condemned the most vulnerable sectors of society.
ANDREYA KORINSEK (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked, on the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, if there was a possibility for the Council and the treaty bodies to counter the negative development of the increasing scope of defamation laws. What could be done by international organizations to foster a more tolerant environment for journalists? On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, what concrete steps could be taken in order to eliminate the exclusion of women, children and indigenous people who were the most vulnerable to hunger? On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, how could health workers be engaged in the debate on methods to reach the highest attainable health? How did the Special Rapporteur perceive his possible cooperation with World Health Organization in the process of implementing the Millennium Development Goals?
ALICIA MARTIN GALLEGOS (Nicaragua), with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, noted that Jean Ziegler had presented an objective report which revealed his great analytical ability and comprehensive approach to the enjoyment of human rights. With regard to his report on his mission to Cuba, his work focused on the contradictions in the society caused by an illegal embargo, clearly demonstrating that such measures constituted violations of human rights law and violations of a whole people. Nicaragua thanked the delegation of Cuba for the firm resolve with which its Government had renewed its commitment to enhance all human rights in the country. It was unacceptable that today the world was richer than ever and the inequality between the rich and poor continued to grow, which took countries further away from the goals set out in the Millennium Development Goals. It was insufficient to move forward in developing countries if the countries of the developed world did not stop distorting market prices. Nicaragua urged developed counties to ensure that all partnership agreements with developing counties included safeguarding mechanisms to ensure food security.
ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran) commended the decision of the Government of Cuba to invite the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to visit that country. This initiative vividly demonstrated the Cuban Government’s cooperation with the United Nations human rights mechanisms and showed the commitment of Cuba to the cause of human rights. As one of the basic human rights, the realization of the right to food required a conducive international economic environment. Iran had therefore always been opposed to the imposition of unilateral coercive measures and economic sanctions on independent countries because of their effects on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights of peoples.
The very high number of people suffering from hunger was alarming and required urgent action. In this respect, the role of international financial institutions was highly important to address this particular issue. In the Special Rapporteur’s view, what were the impacts of economic sanctions and also the role of international institutions in ensuring the right to food? With regards to freedom of expression, Iran believed that it was not an absolute right and should not be used to incite racial or religious hatred.
ALEJANDRO NEYRA SANCHEZ (Peru) said that the Special Rapporteur on the right to health had left Peru with a number of tasks after his visit. Peru thanked Paul Hunt thanked for his commitment. It was hoped that the Council would continue to benefit from his important work. Peru looked forward to the implementation of Mr. Hunt’s proposal that the Council hold a thematic panel on maternity health. On the issues of coherence and cooperation raised by Mr. Hunt and Jean Ziegler, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, these were important thoughts. Different contradictory actions by delegations were being witnessed in the different forums. As the Special Rapporteur said, these were just a few meters away, in the same city. The World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the International Labour Organisation had been mentioned by the Special Rapporteurs yesterday. The matter at hand here was of course human rights, but the secretariats of the different forums should strengthen their collaboration, so as to bring more coherence in their different works.
ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation commended the report prepared by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and noted that there was no doubt that the problem contained therein needed to be resolved urgently. Despite some successes achieved by humankind, the general picture painted by Jean Ziegler was depressing. More than 6 million children died each year as a result of hunger. One of the prerequisites for success in combating hunger was cooperation between governments and the appropriate United Nations’ bodies. The Special Rapporteur’s visit to Cuba noted the impressive efforts the country had been making despite the economic blockade. In today’s world the exercise of the right to food was subject to transnational corporations and depended on their increased control over a vast sector of the economy. These transnational firms, which were formally non-State entities, were, in fact, registered in specific countries and fell under the jurisdiction of legislation of these States. The Special Rapporteur was asked for his opinion on the shared responsibility borne by States that hosted these transnational corporations.
As to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression, Russia noted that the report described a contradictory subject and, indeed, the exercise of these rights should not affect the rights of others. The Russian Federation was of the view that a review and assessment of such rights should take into account the particular civilization and culture of a State. The Russian Federation called on the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression to act strictly within the Council’s code of conduct.
GABRIEL IGNACIO SALAZAR PINEDA (Venezuela) said that the right to food was a basic human right and was enshrined in the national Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic, which stated that basic food supplies should be made available to all Venezuelan citizens. The international community must not remain indifferent to the growing scourge of hunger worldwide. The Venezuelan Government could not accept to stop filling the stomachs of millions of impoverished children in order to fill gas tanks around the world. They hoped that Mr. Ziegler’s successor would keep this in mind and exhibit the same amount of cooperation and a sense of justice as he had accomplished in his mandate. Venezuela also commemorated Cuba for its cooperation with the Special Rapporteur, particularly in light of the external threat of terrorism and the economic embargo imposed by the United States.
LUZ ANGELA MELO, of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), said that, on the right to health, UNFPA shared the opinion of the Special Rapporteur that through strengthening health systems, it would be possible to secure sustainable development. It was believed that one core component of a comprehensive human rights responsive health system was one that fully integrated the outcome of the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action. The Special Rapporteur’s efforts in assisting the Fund to mainstream human rights and particularly reproductive rights were welcomed. Poor sexual and reproductive health accounted for an estimated one third of global burden of disease and early death among women. Sexual and reproductive health programmes had generally been developed slowly. There was an urgent need for dramatically increased investments in this area.
FRANCIS T. MUNHUNDIRIPO (Zimbabwe) commended the Special Rapporteur on the right to food who continued to do his work well without fear or favor and was exemplary in the work of the Council. Zimbabwe equally commended the Government of Cuba to invite the Special Rapporteur to carry out his mission. This once again demonstrated Cuba’s willingness to cooperate with the universal mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights. This augured well for the future of human rights work in Cuba and elsewhere. Zimbabwe trusted that Mr. Ziegler would be able to do his fine work on the right to food in the future.
BART OUVRY (Belgium) said that on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in the future, how would the mandate of the right to food deal with the justiceability and legislative power regarding that particular right? Belgium also fully supported the continuation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It was, however, concerned with certain countries wanting to add defamation of religion to his mandate. With the presence of some countries that had not separated religion and State, defamation of religion was often associated with defamation of the State and this could prove complicated in the future and should not become a part of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.
NGO QUANG XUAN (Viet Nam) said that Viet Nam attached great importance to the right to food, as it was part of the economic, social and cultural rights. It was also a basic component of the right to life. The Special Rapporteur’s analysis of the current situation and the hindrances in the promotion of this right were appreciated. His visit to Cuba was welcomed. It showed Cuba’s willingness towards a constructive dialogue. The findings contained in the report pointed to the hard efforts of the Cuban Government.
MARTIN GEORGOS KELEMENIS (Switzerland), taking note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, said it was based on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) six main principles and aimed on strengthening healthcare systems overall. Switzerland was of the view that the measures as such should be developed by the WHO. The report referred to the draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies as well as public consultations on these guidelines. The Special Rapporteur was asked what the status of these guidelines would be and whether they would be submitted to the Council in the near future. Switzerland was ready to take part in related consultations.
As to the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur for his estimation of general trends in degradation of freedom of opinion and expression and for more specific data and detailed information on a country-by-country basis. More information was also sought for indicators provided in the report on concrete measures taken in countries toward the application of freedom of opinion and expression.
SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand) addressed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health. This issue should not only be seen as a fundamental human right but also a global public good. Moreover, it should be considered with regards to human security. Thailand was pleased to see the growing importance of health issues in the United Nations, which was an important global challenge along with climate change and migration. In addition, pandemics posed a grave security threat to all nations. The lack of new and existing medicines was also of concern and required new thinking and resources to address. Meeting global health challenges was indeed a difficult task and Thailand had placed an emphasis on strengthening its own health system and primary health care. Developed partners would hopefully see the importance of extending cooperation to less advantaged countries to help them cope with these issues.
ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, reinforced his standing as a free and independent thinker. After the Special Rapporteur‘s visit, Cuba had joined two important international treaties: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Personal Rights. The link between health and food was clear, thus the blockade inflicted on Cuba was an infringement of human rights. Cuba exported paediatricians and hundreds of physicians to developing countries, among which was Syria. Cuba was exporting doctors, not laser guided bombs that sometimes targeted orphanages and hospitals.
JIHAN MIRZA (Australia) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression indicated that violations of these rights continued around the world. People who wished to exercise this right continued to be intimidated, harassed and abused. The right to freedom of expression was an essential and fundamental principle of any democratic and free society. As noted in the report of the Special Rapporteur, Australia encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure its citizens were afforded this fundamental right to participate fully in society. Australia was concerned about the situation in Fiji as well. Since the coup there three Fijian citizens had died in custody and a head of a newspaper had been arrested with no further word on his plight. This was an attempt to compromise the freedom of speech. Situations such as these were repeated throughout the world. Australia called on countries that had not yet acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to do so as soon as possible to ensure that the right to the freedom of opinion was exercised.
MICHAEL KLEPSCH (Germany) said that Germany was concerned about a worldwide and increasing trend to censor and restrict the freedom of internationally active media, resulting in a severe infringement on the individual’s information freedom. This worrying development had recently been highlighted in a joint resolution of five major European broadcasting corporations, which was adopted on 30 November 2007. A possibly symptomatic expression of this trend was the recent adoption, on 12 February 2008, by 20 out of 22 Arab Information Ministers, of a Charter containing “Principles for Organizing Radio and TV Satellite Broadcasting and Reception”. In this light, broadcasters were called upon to “avoid the transmission of whatever contradicts inter-Arab solidarity, cooperation or integrity”. In this context, the German delegation asked Special Rapporteur, Mr. Ligabo, how he would assess this worldwide trend to curb informational and media freedom by regulating the activities of trans-national broadcasters.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that the right to health was a progressive one. States had a fundamental responsibility in this regard. International cooperation was an obligation in this area, as had emerged in different United Nations conferences. Morocco had just released its national strategy, called “Together for health”. It was based on the establishment of public institutions and partnerships with the private sector. On the freedom of expression, the Council should take a serious look at the right to freedom of expression in line with the respect of other’s cultural diversities. Concerning the right to food, the Special Rapporteur mandate was fully supported.
ABDUL GHAFOOR MOHAMED (Maldives), regarding the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression, announced that the Special Rapporteur would visit the Maldives in April this year, which came at an opportune time. Freedom of expression was one of the main pillars of Maldivian society. The road map for the country’s reform agenda included a media reform package which was in compliance with international standards and norms. In the Maldives there were currently six daily newspapers and several magazines currently in circulation which expressed a broad range of views for the benefit of the 300,000 Maldivian people. Radio and television stations were also expanding their reach throughout the country. The Government of the Maldives was looking forward to working with the Special Rapporteur in the coming months.
KHADIJA RACHIDA MASRI, of the African Union, said that the right to food was recognized as an incredibly important human right, since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was no justification or logic to debating other rights while children went hungry. The right to food should therefore take precedence over all other rights, with the exception of the right to life. With the number of hungry people around the world reaching close to one billion and the figure of 6 million deaths a year for children under the age five, urgent action was needed. African States had been dealt an unfair hand by international financial institutions, and had seen food security deteriorate with the imposition of structural adjustment programmes and adverse weather conditions. The African Union therefore called upon these international institutions to pay closer attentions to these issues.
OMER DAHAB FADOL MOHAMED (Sudan), said that, on the right to food, Cuba, with its voluntary invitation to the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, had contributed in setting the building blocks of the new Council. The Council was now seen to be working with a basis of dialogue and cooperation. Cuba had helped to transform words into deeds. It was helping in implementing the ideas that had been agreed upon in the General Assembly. In the report of the Special Rapporteur, readers saw that the blockade had put burdens on the Cubans to enjoy their right to life.
CHRIS HOVIUS (Canada) commended the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression for his report and work conducted over the past six years. The Special Rapporteur noted that there had been an increasing trend of undue limitations on the freedom of expression through State interference in editorial independence, subjective licensing procedures, and limitations to the operations of civil society organizations. The Special Rapporteur was asked what measures he would recommend to reverse these trends. The Special Rapporteur also asked what measures the international community could take to promote diversity in the broadcast media. Canada was of the view that a human rights-based approach to address the many cross-cutting issues raised by new information technologies served as a useful start. The Special Rapporteur was asked to elaborate what he considered to be key elements of a human rights-based approach to Internet governance.
MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) said that Mr. Zeigler’s report deserved the full attention of the Council. Hunger had been on the rise since 1996 and it was unacceptable that 854 million people were under-nourished in our day and age. Worse was the fact that 70 per cent of the world’s hungry were women and girls. These figures persisted in spite of the fact that the world had the capacity to produce twice its needs. Nigeria also agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s view that hunger was not inevitable. The Special Rapporteur had also flagged two issues that required serious consideration: the impacts of biofuels and desertification. In Africa, almost 500 million hectares were subject to land degradation and agricultural land was rapidly decreasing. The increase of agriculture to be used as biofuels also necessitated a moratorium on the use of biofuels.
KAZUYOSHI SONEDA (Japan) said that Japan supported the right to health from the standpoint of promoting economic, social and cultural rights. However, international consensus had not yet been built with respect to the nature or scope of the right to health and it was irrelevant to practically restrict the activities of pharmaceutical companies by imposing the argument on them in the draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines. The contributions which they had made to promote access to medicines or the issue of patents and licensing, namely the risk that the weakness of intellectual property rights may impair research and development of medicines or access to medicine, were not adequately reflected in the recommendations of the guidelines.
SVEIN A. MICHELSEN (Norway) expressed appreciation to the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression for his important work. It was noted that the Special Rapporteur had urged governments to enhance their legislation and initiate reforms, where necessary, to uphold these rights. The Special Rapporteur was asked for an update in this regard. Self censorship was increasing and the ability for journalists to carry out their work was seriously curtailed. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur was asked what measures had been taken to curb this trend. Moreover, Norway commended the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for his work and asked him what recommendation he would make to his successor.
AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) said that New Zealand appreciated Mr. Ligabo’s work on the freedom of expression and opinion. It also underlined the need for media professionals to treat information with greater sensitivity and awareness. This of course did not imply that the media should be restricted but simply that freedom came with responsibilities. New Zealand wished to avoid conflicts between faiths and encouraged greater sensitivity to interfaith relations and dialogue. Further to Mr. Ligabo’s recommendation in paragraph 84, New Zealand requested more information on interfaith dialogue.
BYONG-JO KANG (Republic of Korea) said that the right to food was an important matter and it was interfacing with human rights and humanitarian assistance. The Republic of Korea had suggested “global food challenges” as a theme for the next humanitarian segment panel of the Economic and Social Council. The Republic of Korea hoped that the panel would analyse the changing dynamics of food supply and demand. The Special Rapporteur’s report was a good reference for this meeting. Global food challenges, climate change, urbanization and the widening gap between developed and developing countries were found to be mega-trends which had ramifications on the right to food. The Special Rapporteur was encouraged to cooperate with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in order to strengthen humanitarian assistance for the bottom billion.
ANDREI MOLCHAN (Belarus) recalled that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression noted that the monitoring of State media was an illegal act. There were, however, a number of problems related to child pornography and the defamation of religions, which warranted such monitoring. The Special Rapporteur reacted to the judicial ruling handed down against the editor of a Belarusian editor who published a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohamed, but there were no such reactions from the Special Rapporteur against similar actions in Sweden and other countries last year. As to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and his mission to Cuba, it was recalled that the report called for the illegal sanctions imposed by the United States against Cuba to be lifted and that such coercive measures prevented the citizens of Cuba from exercising their right to food. The Council should condemn the use of collateral coercive measures when they were applied.
OLIVIER BALDAUFF (Luxembourg) said that when more than 3 million people died from HIV/AIDS each year and 1 million fell victim to malaria, their right to health was not being observed. Luxembourg reserved almost 1 per cent of it national wealth to international cooperation and development and had made water and health priorities in its political mandate abroad. If health budgets were being reduced around the world, as suggested by Mr. Hunt, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should be approached to sensitize them to the occasionally negative effects of their programmes? With regards to the right to food, urgent attention needed to be paid to the fluctuation of agricultural prices and its effects on producers and consumers alike.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the right to food was a basic human right. It was a legally binding obligation to take steps to respect, protect, facilitate and fulfil the right to food for the 150 States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Yet, more than 840 million people were suffering from hunger throughout the world. It was extremely disappointing that the world produced more than enough food to feed every child in the world. It was frustrating that many countries were destroying their food excesses or used them as bio-fuels. Freedom of expression was also an important human right. Freedom was not an absolute or infinite freedom. It had to be exercised with responsibility and respect to others and particular attention had to be paid so that this right did not cause incitement to racial or religious hatred.
TIBOR SHALEV-SCHLOSSER (Israel) said Israel was a country which placed great emphasis on the right to health and valued the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health. Israel extended an invitation to the Special Rapporteur to visit during 2008 and regretted, as his mandate was ending, he would be unable to come, but looked foreword to his successor’s visit. In his report, the Special Rapporteur made brief mention of his initiative regarding the guidelines on pharmaceutical companies. As Israel was home to a thriving biotechnology industry, with nearly 50 pharmaceutical companies based in the country, Israel was particularly interested in seeing the revised final guidelines, to be published this year. In this regard, Israel would be curious to know what suggestions from the pharmaceutical industry he had incorporated into his draft guidelines, as well as any particular challenges he envisioned in gaining widespread acceptance of the guidelines.
JOSE MARIA CAPON DUARTE E SILVA (Angola) made a comment with regards to the report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health and in particular to a communication that was allegedly sent by Paul Hunt to the Government of Angola relating to health care problems in the region of Xa-Muteba. Unfortunately, the Government of Angola was not aware of this communication and suggested that the Special Rapporteur had not used the appropriate channels. After the effects of a brutal civil war, Angola reminded Mr. Hunt that it was simply not feasible to provide water and health in all regions of the country.
Angola also welcomed Cuba’s cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and expressed its concern with the food security situation in the world. It was unacceptable that 6 million children under the age of five died each year when double the amount of food needed to feed the world was being produced on this planet. Unfortunately, the current economic order marginalized the African Continent, which continued to provide primary materials to the rest of the world whilst remaining impoverished.
GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI (South Africa) said that South Africa firmly believed in the justifiability of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to food. South Africa was committed to the progressive realization of these rights. The international human rights system should also approach the right to food in a comprehensive manner. The Human Rights Council should set time aside to give prominence to the right to food. South Africa strongly believed that issues of eradication of poverty, hunger and starvation should find their way into the Council’s work, in order to meet the target set in this regard in the Millennium Development Goals.
MOKTAR IDHAM MUSA (Malaysia) said Malaysia strongly supported the work of the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food and the right to health which the country considered fundamental as inputs to national efforts and international cooperation towards enhancing the right to health and the right to food. This set of basic human rights was an indispensable component for the general well-being and better standard of living for all peoples, especially in the developing world. The Government of Malaysia continued to give the highest priority in these two areas in the interest of all Malaysians. Moreover, Malaysia studied with great interest the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food’s missions to Bolivia and Ciba. Malaysia also studied the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression and fully endorsed the position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference concerning the urgent need to bring a balance between this right and the right to freedom of religion and belief. One’s right to freedom of opinion and expression must not trample on the human rights of others and their dignity.
KATHARINA ROSE, of the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, said that following the visit by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health in 2005 to Uganda, he had recommended that Uganda establish a Right to Health Unit that was responsible for monitoring policies, programmes, and projects related to neglected diseases. Uganda was pleased to announce that it had in fact established a Right to Health Unit in the Directorate of Monitoring and Inspections in 2007. Amongst many responsibilities, the Unit also had to prepare annual reports to Parliament to highlight any progress made in the realization of the right to health with realistic and practical recommendations. In its aim to promote a human rights based approach to the planning and implementation of health services, the Unit was currently being funded by the United Nations Development Programme under its CPAP Programme.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that the Movement against Racism shared the views of the Special Rapporteur that the freedom of expression was a fundamental right. In the non-autonomous territory of Western Sarah, many violations of the right to freedom of expression were found. Various sources attested to the fact that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was under pressure not to publish the report on the visit in the territory. The French Minister had said last week that freedom of thought was an important right. Countries should never go backwards. Morocco had shown its wish to be active in the Council and in the defence of human rights. Morocco should join the request for the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to publish the report of the visit to Western Sahara. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should keep its independence towards the Human Rights Council and towards other States.
CAROLINA AMADOR PEREZ, of the Federation of Cuban Women, said the Federation had the privilege to meet with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food during which he heard their explanation about the activities being undertaken in the area of developing the social and labor community, and in particular the efforts to give equality to women. The Federation of Cuban Women had taken many steps to initiate health programmes with a special emphasis on maternal and child healthcare and paying particular attention to pregnant women and mothers. Through its programmes in providing prophylactics for anemic women, it was noted that treatment was provided free of cost. It was noted that Cuban women were active in food production in the non-sugar cane area. The Federation of Cuban Women was part of a group supporting rural women carrying out activities supporting education and public awareness programmes, particularly as regards food production.
ESTHER WOLF, of Foodfirst Information and Action Network, said that the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, was commended for his efforts in promoting food security and raising awareness to the challenges of ensuring the right to food. In particular, peasants were the most important cases to consider with regards to the right to food as they remained the most malnourished and were oftentimes the poorest and most marginalized parts of society. In addition, the moratorium on agro-fuels would be an important tool to address the long-term risks associated with biofuels.
ROY W. BROWN, of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, said that the Union regretted that the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression was standing down. Regarding permissible limitations to freedom of expression, it was encouraging that the Special Rapporteur had mentioned the need of sensitivity in his report. In this context, attempts by some States to further restrict freedom of expression, by making human rights subject to religious law, were seen with alarm. Such restriction elevated faith above human rights. States were urged to reject such attempts.
ANITA GOH, of Amnesty International, noted that Amnesty International had published a report on Sri Lanka concerning the freedom of opinion and expression. Since the resumption of armed conflict in 2006, threats to the media and media freedom had become very serious and there had been reports of at least ten media workers having been unlawfully killed. While most of the members of the media who had been targeted were from the Tamil community, since 2006 government officials and pro-government Tamil armed groups had been increasingly targeting journalists of the majority Sinhalese community. Other serious obstacles to media freedom included the closure of newspapers and censorship and intimidation. Investigations into these killings had shown little progress. Amnesty International urged the Government of Sri Lanka to accept a visit of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances at the earliest convenience suitable to the Group.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; and Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that every five seconds, a child under the age of 10 died because of malnutrition. This was the equivalent to the deaths of 18,000 children a day. The dire situation of food security was solely due to the will of States, who were responsible for perpetuating this injustice. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, was indeed right in underlining the incoherence and inconsistency of the United Nations system and that of its Member States. Finally, the Centre pointed out the absurdity of an economic system that continued to privilege the concentration of property in the hands of a small minority, effectively condemning to death the world’s peasants, who still constituted half of humanity.
RAJWANT VIRK, of Human Rights Advocates, said that the right to food could not be separated from the right to water. It constituted an important element for the enjoyment of the right to food. The right to water was also fulfilling the right to life, health and housing. 1.1 billion people in the world did currently not have access to safe water. It was imperative to give effect to the right to water. All States had to develop legislation on water. Private third parties had to take into account this right in pursuing their activities and should be held responsible for any violations. States should ensure that transnational cooperation did not interfere with the enjoyment of the right to water.
AABADILA SEMLALI, of Centrist Democratic International, referring to the work of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression, noted that there were thousands of people languishing in the prisons in Western Sahara merely for attempting to exercise their right to freedom of expression. Many of these persons were in the Tindouf camp and were living in an untenable situation and deprived of expressing their freedom of opinion. The cases of individuals who were killed or forcibly disappeared for speaking up was also raised. It was noted that more than 100 Sahrawis had organized a parallel congress to give voice to those imprisoned. Others were persecuted because they expressed an opinion against the State of Morocco. Recent negotiations saw the situation to be serious.
GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters without Borders - International, commended the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which drew stark attention to the ever-spiralling numbers of murderous attacks on journalists, arbitrary detentions of reporters and web-loggers, as well as summary trials on trumped up charges of defamation followed by imprisonment or ruinously heavy fines. Reporters Without Borders also shared and reiterated the Special Rapporteur’s urge for minimal restrictions on freedom of expression while offering wise advice to those who may not weigh the full consequences of publications which offended cultural and religious sensitivities.
PIERRE MIOT, of International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for his work, particularly for having highlighted the question of food sovereignty. As stated in his report, 70 per cent of people living in rural areas were suffering from hunger. The Special Rapporteur had drawn to the attention of the Commission that food sovereignty should be considered as another solution for agriculture, so that States could honour the right to food. The concept of food sovereignty was a new concept and opened a genuine hope for the effective realisation of the right to food. Since 1996 this concept had been defended by many non-governmental organizations. It was tackling head on the neo-liberal policy of financial institutions. Food sovereignty was the right for people to feed themselves and to choose themselves their own agricultural and food policy. This was contrary to the actual world trade logic. It was rejecting the model of an industrial agriculture. The International Federation asked which legal channels could be used to establish food sovereignty as a main policy guideline for agriculture?
Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteurs
PAUL HUNT, Special Rapporteur on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, in concluding remarks, thanked all delegations for comments and questions posed to him and said he would be available for further consultations. Regarding questions posed on the draft guidelines on pharmaceutical companies, he recalled that his report stated the intention for States to adopt these guidelines. Pharmaceutical companies had a major impact on the right to health, often it was positive, but something it was not. The guidelines were aimed for these companies to improve their activities, and to especially benefit those living in poverty.
With regard to Sweden’s human rights activities, the Special Rapporteur noted that since the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945, and reinforced since then, States had some responsibility to work towards improving the lives of all. He said he could not accept that this commitment was purely moral and political. Responding to questions on how to engage more with health workers, it was noted that there was a willingness of the health workers to learn, but it was necessary to spell out to them how they could improve their work and States should raise human rights at health meetings, such as at the World Health Organization Assembly.
As to the impact of traditional practices, there was no doubt that these could lead to discrimination in some cases in the provision of health services. On maternal mortality there were clear health policies and efforts being undertaken worldwide to improve maternal mortality rates. If a country had a functioning health system it would benefit not only women, but all. This issue was not just a challenge for low and middle-income countries but also for upper income countries as well. There was a disproportionate number of women from ethnic minorities living in poverty who were dying. It was hoped that the international community would rise to the challenges in looking at this vital issue.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in concluding remarks, thanked all the delegations that supported his mandate and contributed to its success. He addressed three specific questions, the first of which was asked by the Ambassador of Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference. This had to do with the role of transnational corporations on the right to food. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development had made an inventory of 85,000 transnational companies and the five largest ones were much more powerful in terms of annual revenue than most countries in the world. They were beyond the control of this Council. One positive step to reducing the power of multinational corporations was the guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on human rights and multinationals, which should be signed by as many Governments as possible. The Human Rights Council had not yet focussed on this problem and had accepted to prepare an inventory of ombudsmen and officials but there was a great need for a regulatory framework and a Special Rapporteur on this issue as these non-state actors had become incredibly powerful in recent years.
The second point of order raised by Mr. Ziegler referred to the report on Cuba, which raised a great deal of interest in the Council. Cuba was engaged in a process of in depth reform of its agricultural sector. The causes were different from most other countries. Cuba boasted some 500,000 university students, which was double the number in Switzerland with regards to population. If children of farmers became scientists, biologists and lawyers, they would not stay on the land. The same applied to the market.
In response to the final question, Mr. Ziegler said the African Group had asked about the increase in hunger. The Brussels Commission was seeking to impose economic partnership agreements with developing countries, which in effect imposed pure liberalization of their agricultural industries. These negotiations must not continue as they amounted to blackmailing. Moreover, Western powers should establish coherence on these issues to gradually abolish export subsidies. After the Hong Kong conference, nothing had been done. Three years later, agricultural dumping and export subsidies continued and they were destroying the agricultural development of developing countries.
AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in concluding remarks, said that, concerning the remarks of Ukraine, nobody had any doubts about the multicultural society of Ukraine, and nobody had cast this society as racist, but his focus on the racist attacks had mainly been because of the restriction of expression of minorities in the country. He stood by his recommendations and hoped that they would be taken into account. On freedom of expression and the respect of religion, many delegations had pointed out the importance of exercising this right with care. Freedom of expression was not absolute. He had often reminded this. Infringing this was not creating a peaceful dialogue between communities. Various existing legal frameworks could offer remedies to this problem. He agreed that cases of expression of hate against religions had to be vehemently condemned. On the criminalization of defamation, there was an annex in his report about this topic. On the issue of the Danish cartoon, he had made a visit to Denmark, and had made a report on this topic in the past. He thanked the Maldives for their invitation.
Right of Reply
SHARINDRA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, referring to the statement by Amnesty International, recalled that the report by Amnesty International alleged threats to media and media freedom. The report was totally misplaced and Amnesty International failed to acknowledge the many positive steps taken by the Government to ensure freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka, as well as its efforts to combat terrorism. There were over 40 media outlets in the country indicating the status of freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, of these only four were Government-owned outlets.
VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine), speaking in a right of reply, said that he insisted that the Special Rapporteur’s statement about racist violence in Ukraine was completely untrue and that it was not substantiated by any facts. The report did not refer to any sources on which he had based these allegations. Also, the Special Rapporteur’s allegations did not fall into the scope of his mandate.
____________
For use of the information media; not an official record
MORNING 12 March 2008
The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its interactive debate on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said in concluding remarks that with regards to questions posed on the draft guidelines on pharmaceutical companies, he recalled that his report stated the intention for States to adopt these guidelines. Pharmaceutical companies had a major impact on the right to health, often it was positive, but something it was not. The guidelines were aimed for these companies to improve their activities, and to especially benefit those living in poverty. Responding to questions on how to engage more with health workers, he noted that there was a willingness of the health workers to learn, but it was necessary to spell out to them how they could improve their work and States should raise human rights at health meetings, such as at the World Health Organization Assembly.
Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said in concluding remarks that concerning the role of trans-national corporations on the right to food, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development had made an inventory of 85,000 transnational companies and the five largest ones were much more powerful in terms of annual revenue than most countries in the world. They were beyond the control of this Council. One positive step to reducing the power of multinational corporations was the guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on human rights and multinationals, which should be signed by as many Governments as possible. The Human Rights Council had not yet focussed on this problem and had accepted to prepare an inventory of ombudsmen and officials but there was a great need for a regulatory framework and a Special Rapporteur on this issue as these non-state actors had become incredibly powerful in recent years.
Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said in concluding remarks that on freedom of expression and the respect of religion, many delegations had pointed out the importance of exercising this right with care. Freedom of expression was not absolute. He had often recalled this. Infringing this was not creating a peaceful dialogue between communities. Various existing legal frameworks could offer remedies to this problem. He agreed that cases of expression of hate against religions had to be vehemently condemned. On the criminalization of defamation, there was an annex in his report about this topic. On the issue of the Danish cartoon, he had made a visit to Denmark, and had made a report on this topic in the past.
The three Special Rapporteurs presented their reports to the Council on 11 March in the afternoon. For more details, see press release HRC/08/20.
In the interactive dialogue, delegations praised the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food as this right was one of the most fundamental human rights. Some speakers praised his mission to Cuba, and Cuba’s cooperation with his mandate. The role of developed countries which distorted market prices was raised as a factor which prohibited developing countries from fulfilling the right to food of their peoples. The right to food should take precedence over all other rights, with the exception of the right to life. With the number of hungry people around the world reaching close to one billion and the figure of 6 million deaths a year for children under the age five, urgent action was needed. The role of transnational corporations affecting implementation of the right to food was also raised. Global food challenges, climate change, urbanization and the widening gap between developed and developing countries were found to be mega-trends which had ramifications on the right to food. African States had been dealt an unfair hand by international financial institutions, and had seen food security deteriorate with the imposition of structural adjustment programmes and adverse weather conditions.
On the right to freedom of opinion and expression, some countries urged the Special Rapporteur and the Council to counter what they called the negative development of the increasing scope of defamation laws. Violations of these rights continued around the world as people who wished to exercise them continued to be intimidated, harassed and abused. The right to freedom of expression was an essential and fundamental principle of any democratic and free society. Others stressed that the exercise of the freedom of opinion and expression should not affect the rights of others. The Council should take a serious look at the right to freedom of expression in line with the respect of other’s cultural diversities. While the Special Rapporteur believed that the monitoring of State media was an illegal act, there were, however, a number of problems related to child pornography and the defamation of religions, which warranted such monitoring. Freedom was not an absolute or infinite freedom. It had to be exercised with responsibility and respect to others and particular attention had to be paid so that this right did not cause incitement to racial or religious hatred. One’s right to freedom of opinion and expression must not trample on the human rights of others and their dignity.
With regards to the right to health, speakers urged different United Nations bodies to work more coherently together, because sometimes the work of the World Trade Organization and others affected national efforts to ensure the right to health. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should be approached to sensitize them to the occasionally negative effects of their programmes. It was underscored that through strengthening health system, it would be possible to secure sustainable development. States had a fundamental responsibility to ensure the right to health, but at the same time, international cooperation was an obligation in this area, as had emerged in different United Nations conferences.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue this morning were the delegations of Tunisia, Côte d’Ivoire, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Nicaragua, Iran, Peru, the Russian Federation, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belgium, Viet Nam, Switzerland, Thailand, Syria, Australia, Germany, Morocco, the Maldives, Sudan, Canada, Nigeria, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Belarus, Luxembourg, Bangladesh, Israel, Angola, South Africa and Malaysia. Representatives of the United Nations Population Fund, the African Union, and the Ugandan Human Rights Commission also provided statements.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Federation of Cuban Women, Foodfirst Information and Action Network, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Amnesty International, Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; and Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Human Rights Advocates, Centrist Democratic International, Reporters without Borders - International and International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements.
Sri Lanka and Ukraine spoke in right of reply.
The Council today is meeting in three back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. When the Council concluded its morning meeting at noon, it immediately started its midday meeting during which it will consider the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders, on violence against women, its causes and consequences, and on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights.
Interactive Debate on Reports on Right to Health, to Food, and to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
BELHASSEN MASMOUDI (Tunisia), on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, welcomed the effective work that Jean Ziegler had been undertaking to help eradicate hunger worldwide. His report covered a number of cross-cutting issues which should combine efforts to the objectives set. Tunisia was firmly committed to the principles of human rights and the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and had for decades made sure that its citizens enjoyed the right to food. One of Tunisia’s main goals was eliminating the phenomenon of poverty in order to ensure growth and support social treatment leading to social protection for the poorest. Tunisia had a 3.8 per cent poverty rate as of 2007, as a result of its efforts in this regard.
NIANGORANH KABLAN ALAIN PORQUET (Côte d’Ivoire) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to food Jean Ziegler for his remarkable work on one of the most fundamental human rights, the right to food, which they considered as akin to the right to life. The Special Rapporteur’s commitment had taught the world that there were still many hurdles to overcome with regards to food security, which oftentimes condemned the most vulnerable sectors of society.
ANDREYA KORINSEK (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked, on the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, if there was a possibility for the Council and the treaty bodies to counter the negative development of the increasing scope of defamation laws. What could be done by international organizations to foster a more tolerant environment for journalists? On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, what concrete steps could be taken in order to eliminate the exclusion of women, children and indigenous people who were the most vulnerable to hunger? On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, how could health workers be engaged in the debate on methods to reach the highest attainable health? How did the Special Rapporteur perceive his possible cooperation with World Health Organization in the process of implementing the Millennium Development Goals?
ALICIA MARTIN GALLEGOS (Nicaragua), with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, noted that Jean Ziegler had presented an objective report which revealed his great analytical ability and comprehensive approach to the enjoyment of human rights. With regard to his report on his mission to Cuba, his work focused on the contradictions in the society caused by an illegal embargo, clearly demonstrating that such measures constituted violations of human rights law and violations of a whole people. Nicaragua thanked the delegation of Cuba for the firm resolve with which its Government had renewed its commitment to enhance all human rights in the country. It was unacceptable that today the world was richer than ever and the inequality between the rich and poor continued to grow, which took countries further away from the goals set out in the Millennium Development Goals. It was insufficient to move forward in developing countries if the countries of the developed world did not stop distorting market prices. Nicaragua urged developed counties to ensure that all partnership agreements with developing counties included safeguarding mechanisms to ensure food security.
ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran) commended the decision of the Government of Cuba to invite the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to visit that country. This initiative vividly demonstrated the Cuban Government’s cooperation with the United Nations human rights mechanisms and showed the commitment of Cuba to the cause of human rights. As one of the basic human rights, the realization of the right to food required a conducive international economic environment. Iran had therefore always been opposed to the imposition of unilateral coercive measures and economic sanctions on independent countries because of their effects on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights of peoples.
The very high number of people suffering from hunger was alarming and required urgent action. In this respect, the role of international financial institutions was highly important to address this particular issue. In the Special Rapporteur’s view, what were the impacts of economic sanctions and also the role of international institutions in ensuring the right to food? With regards to freedom of expression, Iran believed that it was not an absolute right and should not be used to incite racial or religious hatred.
ALEJANDRO NEYRA SANCHEZ (Peru) said that the Special Rapporteur on the right to health had left Peru with a number of tasks after his visit. Peru thanked Paul Hunt thanked for his commitment. It was hoped that the Council would continue to benefit from his important work. Peru looked forward to the implementation of Mr. Hunt’s proposal that the Council hold a thematic panel on maternity health. On the issues of coherence and cooperation raised by Mr. Hunt and Jean Ziegler, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, these were important thoughts. Different contradictory actions by delegations were being witnessed in the different forums. As the Special Rapporteur said, these were just a few meters away, in the same city. The World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the International Labour Organisation had been mentioned by the Special Rapporteurs yesterday. The matter at hand here was of course human rights, but the secretariats of the different forums should strengthen their collaboration, so as to bring more coherence in their different works.
ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation commended the report prepared by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and noted that there was no doubt that the problem contained therein needed to be resolved urgently. Despite some successes achieved by humankind, the general picture painted by Jean Ziegler was depressing. More than 6 million children died each year as a result of hunger. One of the prerequisites for success in combating hunger was cooperation between governments and the appropriate United Nations’ bodies. The Special Rapporteur’s visit to Cuba noted the impressive efforts the country had been making despite the economic blockade. In today’s world the exercise of the right to food was subject to transnational corporations and depended on their increased control over a vast sector of the economy. These transnational firms, which were formally non-State entities, were, in fact, registered in specific countries and fell under the jurisdiction of legislation of these States. The Special Rapporteur was asked for his opinion on the shared responsibility borne by States that hosted these transnational corporations.
As to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression, Russia noted that the report described a contradictory subject and, indeed, the exercise of these rights should not affect the rights of others. The Russian Federation was of the view that a review and assessment of such rights should take into account the particular civilization and culture of a State. The Russian Federation called on the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression to act strictly within the Council’s code of conduct.
GABRIEL IGNACIO SALAZAR PINEDA (Venezuela) said that the right to food was a basic human right and was enshrined in the national Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic, which stated that basic food supplies should be made available to all Venezuelan citizens. The international community must not remain indifferent to the growing scourge of hunger worldwide. The Venezuelan Government could not accept to stop filling the stomachs of millions of impoverished children in order to fill gas tanks around the world. They hoped that Mr. Ziegler’s successor would keep this in mind and exhibit the same amount of cooperation and a sense of justice as he had accomplished in his mandate. Venezuela also commemorated Cuba for its cooperation with the Special Rapporteur, particularly in light of the external threat of terrorism and the economic embargo imposed by the United States.
LUZ ANGELA MELO, of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), said that, on the right to health, UNFPA shared the opinion of the Special Rapporteur that through strengthening health systems, it would be possible to secure sustainable development. It was believed that one core component of a comprehensive human rights responsive health system was one that fully integrated the outcome of the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action. The Special Rapporteur’s efforts in assisting the Fund to mainstream human rights and particularly reproductive rights were welcomed. Poor sexual and reproductive health accounted for an estimated one third of global burden of disease and early death among women. Sexual and reproductive health programmes had generally been developed slowly. There was an urgent need for dramatically increased investments in this area.
FRANCIS T. MUNHUNDIRIPO (Zimbabwe) commended the Special Rapporteur on the right to food who continued to do his work well without fear or favor and was exemplary in the work of the Council. Zimbabwe equally commended the Government of Cuba to invite the Special Rapporteur to carry out his mission. This once again demonstrated Cuba’s willingness to cooperate with the universal mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights. This augured well for the future of human rights work in Cuba and elsewhere. Zimbabwe trusted that Mr. Ziegler would be able to do his fine work on the right to food in the future.
BART OUVRY (Belgium) said that on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in the future, how would the mandate of the right to food deal with the justiceability and legislative power regarding that particular right? Belgium also fully supported the continuation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It was, however, concerned with certain countries wanting to add defamation of religion to his mandate. With the presence of some countries that had not separated religion and State, defamation of religion was often associated with defamation of the State and this could prove complicated in the future and should not become a part of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.
NGO QUANG XUAN (Viet Nam) said that Viet Nam attached great importance to the right to food, as it was part of the economic, social and cultural rights. It was also a basic component of the right to life. The Special Rapporteur’s analysis of the current situation and the hindrances in the promotion of this right were appreciated. His visit to Cuba was welcomed. It showed Cuba’s willingness towards a constructive dialogue. The findings contained in the report pointed to the hard efforts of the Cuban Government.
MARTIN GEORGOS KELEMENIS (Switzerland), taking note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, said it was based on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) six main principles and aimed on strengthening healthcare systems overall. Switzerland was of the view that the measures as such should be developed by the WHO. The report referred to the draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies as well as public consultations on these guidelines. The Special Rapporteur was asked what the status of these guidelines would be and whether they would be submitted to the Council in the near future. Switzerland was ready to take part in related consultations.
As to the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur for his estimation of general trends in degradation of freedom of opinion and expression and for more specific data and detailed information on a country-by-country basis. More information was also sought for indicators provided in the report on concrete measures taken in countries toward the application of freedom of opinion and expression.
SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand) addressed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health. This issue should not only be seen as a fundamental human right but also a global public good. Moreover, it should be considered with regards to human security. Thailand was pleased to see the growing importance of health issues in the United Nations, which was an important global challenge along with climate change and migration. In addition, pandemics posed a grave security threat to all nations. The lack of new and existing medicines was also of concern and required new thinking and resources to address. Meeting global health challenges was indeed a difficult task and Thailand had placed an emphasis on strengthening its own health system and primary health care. Developed partners would hopefully see the importance of extending cooperation to less advantaged countries to help them cope with these issues.
ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, reinforced his standing as a free and independent thinker. After the Special Rapporteur‘s visit, Cuba had joined two important international treaties: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Personal Rights. The link between health and food was clear, thus the blockade inflicted on Cuba was an infringement of human rights. Cuba exported paediatricians and hundreds of physicians to developing countries, among which was Syria. Cuba was exporting doctors, not laser guided bombs that sometimes targeted orphanages and hospitals.
JIHAN MIRZA (Australia) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression indicated that violations of these rights continued around the world. People who wished to exercise this right continued to be intimidated, harassed and abused. The right to freedom of expression was an essential and fundamental principle of any democratic and free society. As noted in the report of the Special Rapporteur, Australia encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure its citizens were afforded this fundamental right to participate fully in society. Australia was concerned about the situation in Fiji as well. Since the coup there three Fijian citizens had died in custody and a head of a newspaper had been arrested with no further word on his plight. This was an attempt to compromise the freedom of speech. Situations such as these were repeated throughout the world. Australia called on countries that had not yet acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to do so as soon as possible to ensure that the right to the freedom of opinion was exercised.
MICHAEL KLEPSCH (Germany) said that Germany was concerned about a worldwide and increasing trend to censor and restrict the freedom of internationally active media, resulting in a severe infringement on the individual’s information freedom. This worrying development had recently been highlighted in a joint resolution of five major European broadcasting corporations, which was adopted on 30 November 2007. A possibly symptomatic expression of this trend was the recent adoption, on 12 February 2008, by 20 out of 22 Arab Information Ministers, of a Charter containing “Principles for Organizing Radio and TV Satellite Broadcasting and Reception”. In this light, broadcasters were called upon to “avoid the transmission of whatever contradicts inter-Arab solidarity, cooperation or integrity”. In this context, the German delegation asked Special Rapporteur, Mr. Ligabo, how he would assess this worldwide trend to curb informational and media freedom by regulating the activities of trans-national broadcasters.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that the right to health was a progressive one. States had a fundamental responsibility in this regard. International cooperation was an obligation in this area, as had emerged in different United Nations conferences. Morocco had just released its national strategy, called “Together for health”. It was based on the establishment of public institutions and partnerships with the private sector. On the freedom of expression, the Council should take a serious look at the right to freedom of expression in line with the respect of other’s cultural diversities. Concerning the right to food, the Special Rapporteur mandate was fully supported.
ABDUL GHAFOOR MOHAMED (Maldives), regarding the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression, announced that the Special Rapporteur would visit the Maldives in April this year, which came at an opportune time. Freedom of expression was one of the main pillars of Maldivian society. The road map for the country’s reform agenda included a media reform package which was in compliance with international standards and norms. In the Maldives there were currently six daily newspapers and several magazines currently in circulation which expressed a broad range of views for the benefit of the 300,000 Maldivian people. Radio and television stations were also expanding their reach throughout the country. The Government of the Maldives was looking forward to working with the Special Rapporteur in the coming months.
KHADIJA RACHIDA MASRI, of the African Union, said that the right to food was recognized as an incredibly important human right, since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was no justification or logic to debating other rights while children went hungry. The right to food should therefore take precedence over all other rights, with the exception of the right to life. With the number of hungry people around the world reaching close to one billion and the figure of 6 million deaths a year for children under the age five, urgent action was needed. African States had been dealt an unfair hand by international financial institutions, and had seen food security deteriorate with the imposition of structural adjustment programmes and adverse weather conditions. The African Union therefore called upon these international institutions to pay closer attentions to these issues.
OMER DAHAB FADOL MOHAMED (Sudan), said that, on the right to food, Cuba, with its voluntary invitation to the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, had contributed in setting the building blocks of the new Council. The Council was now seen to be working with a basis of dialogue and cooperation. Cuba had helped to transform words into deeds. It was helping in implementing the ideas that had been agreed upon in the General Assembly. In the report of the Special Rapporteur, readers saw that the blockade had put burdens on the Cubans to enjoy their right to life.
CHRIS HOVIUS (Canada) commended the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression for his report and work conducted over the past six years. The Special Rapporteur noted that there had been an increasing trend of undue limitations on the freedom of expression through State interference in editorial independence, subjective licensing procedures, and limitations to the operations of civil society organizations. The Special Rapporteur was asked what measures he would recommend to reverse these trends. The Special Rapporteur also asked what measures the international community could take to promote diversity in the broadcast media. Canada was of the view that a human rights-based approach to address the many cross-cutting issues raised by new information technologies served as a useful start. The Special Rapporteur was asked to elaborate what he considered to be key elements of a human rights-based approach to Internet governance.
MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) said that Mr. Zeigler’s report deserved the full attention of the Council. Hunger had been on the rise since 1996 and it was unacceptable that 854 million people were under-nourished in our day and age. Worse was the fact that 70 per cent of the world’s hungry were women and girls. These figures persisted in spite of the fact that the world had the capacity to produce twice its needs. Nigeria also agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s view that hunger was not inevitable. The Special Rapporteur had also flagged two issues that required serious consideration: the impacts of biofuels and desertification. In Africa, almost 500 million hectares were subject to land degradation and agricultural land was rapidly decreasing. The increase of agriculture to be used as biofuels also necessitated a moratorium on the use of biofuels.
KAZUYOSHI SONEDA (Japan) said that Japan supported the right to health from the standpoint of promoting economic, social and cultural rights. However, international consensus had not yet been built with respect to the nature or scope of the right to health and it was irrelevant to practically restrict the activities of pharmaceutical companies by imposing the argument on them in the draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines. The contributions which they had made to promote access to medicines or the issue of patents and licensing, namely the risk that the weakness of intellectual property rights may impair research and development of medicines or access to medicine, were not adequately reflected in the recommendations of the guidelines.
SVEIN A. MICHELSEN (Norway) expressed appreciation to the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression for his important work. It was noted that the Special Rapporteur had urged governments to enhance their legislation and initiate reforms, where necessary, to uphold these rights. The Special Rapporteur was asked for an update in this regard. Self censorship was increasing and the ability for journalists to carry out their work was seriously curtailed. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur was asked what measures had been taken to curb this trend. Moreover, Norway commended the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for his work and asked him what recommendation he would make to his successor.
AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) said that New Zealand appreciated Mr. Ligabo’s work on the freedom of expression and opinion. It also underlined the need for media professionals to treat information with greater sensitivity and awareness. This of course did not imply that the media should be restricted but simply that freedom came with responsibilities. New Zealand wished to avoid conflicts between faiths and encouraged greater sensitivity to interfaith relations and dialogue. Further to Mr. Ligabo’s recommendation in paragraph 84, New Zealand requested more information on interfaith dialogue.
BYONG-JO KANG (Republic of Korea) said that the right to food was an important matter and it was interfacing with human rights and humanitarian assistance. The Republic of Korea had suggested “global food challenges” as a theme for the next humanitarian segment panel of the Economic and Social Council. The Republic of Korea hoped that the panel would analyse the changing dynamics of food supply and demand. The Special Rapporteur’s report was a good reference for this meeting. Global food challenges, climate change, urbanization and the widening gap between developed and developing countries were found to be mega-trends which had ramifications on the right to food. The Special Rapporteur was encouraged to cooperate with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in order to strengthen humanitarian assistance for the bottom billion.
ANDREI MOLCHAN (Belarus) recalled that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression noted that the monitoring of State media was an illegal act. There were, however, a number of problems related to child pornography and the defamation of religions, which warranted such monitoring. The Special Rapporteur reacted to the judicial ruling handed down against the editor of a Belarusian editor who published a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohamed, but there were no such reactions from the Special Rapporteur against similar actions in Sweden and other countries last year. As to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and his mission to Cuba, it was recalled that the report called for the illegal sanctions imposed by the United States against Cuba to be lifted and that such coercive measures prevented the citizens of Cuba from exercising their right to food. The Council should condemn the use of collateral coercive measures when they were applied.
OLIVIER BALDAUFF (Luxembourg) said that when more than 3 million people died from HIV/AIDS each year and 1 million fell victim to malaria, their right to health was not being observed. Luxembourg reserved almost 1 per cent of it national wealth to international cooperation and development and had made water and health priorities in its political mandate abroad. If health budgets were being reduced around the world, as suggested by Mr. Hunt, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should be approached to sensitize them to the occasionally negative effects of their programmes? With regards to the right to food, urgent attention needed to be paid to the fluctuation of agricultural prices and its effects on producers and consumers alike.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the right to food was a basic human right. It was a legally binding obligation to take steps to respect, protect, facilitate and fulfil the right to food for the 150 States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Yet, more than 840 million people were suffering from hunger throughout the world. It was extremely disappointing that the world produced more than enough food to feed every child in the world. It was frustrating that many countries were destroying their food excesses or used them as bio-fuels. Freedom of expression was also an important human right. Freedom was not an absolute or infinite freedom. It had to be exercised with responsibility and respect to others and particular attention had to be paid so that this right did not cause incitement to racial or religious hatred.
TIBOR SHALEV-SCHLOSSER (Israel) said Israel was a country which placed great emphasis on the right to health and valued the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health. Israel extended an invitation to the Special Rapporteur to visit during 2008 and regretted, as his mandate was ending, he would be unable to come, but looked foreword to his successor’s visit. In his report, the Special Rapporteur made brief mention of his initiative regarding the guidelines on pharmaceutical companies. As Israel was home to a thriving biotechnology industry, with nearly 50 pharmaceutical companies based in the country, Israel was particularly interested in seeing the revised final guidelines, to be published this year. In this regard, Israel would be curious to know what suggestions from the pharmaceutical industry he had incorporated into his draft guidelines, as well as any particular challenges he envisioned in gaining widespread acceptance of the guidelines.
JOSE MARIA CAPON DUARTE E SILVA (Angola) made a comment with regards to the report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health and in particular to a communication that was allegedly sent by Paul Hunt to the Government of Angola relating to health care problems in the region of Xa-Muteba. Unfortunately, the Government of Angola was not aware of this communication and suggested that the Special Rapporteur had not used the appropriate channels. After the effects of a brutal civil war, Angola reminded Mr. Hunt that it was simply not feasible to provide water and health in all regions of the country.
Angola also welcomed Cuba’s cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and expressed its concern with the food security situation in the world. It was unacceptable that 6 million children under the age of five died each year when double the amount of food needed to feed the world was being produced on this planet. Unfortunately, the current economic order marginalized the African Continent, which continued to provide primary materials to the rest of the world whilst remaining impoverished.
GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI (South Africa) said that South Africa firmly believed in the justifiability of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to food. South Africa was committed to the progressive realization of these rights. The international human rights system should also approach the right to food in a comprehensive manner. The Human Rights Council should set time aside to give prominence to the right to food. South Africa strongly believed that issues of eradication of poverty, hunger and starvation should find their way into the Council’s work, in order to meet the target set in this regard in the Millennium Development Goals.
MOKTAR IDHAM MUSA (Malaysia) said Malaysia strongly supported the work of the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food and the right to health which the country considered fundamental as inputs to national efforts and international cooperation towards enhancing the right to health and the right to food. This set of basic human rights was an indispensable component for the general well-being and better standard of living for all peoples, especially in the developing world. The Government of Malaysia continued to give the highest priority in these two areas in the interest of all Malaysians. Moreover, Malaysia studied with great interest the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food’s missions to Bolivia and Ciba. Malaysia also studied the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression and fully endorsed the position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference concerning the urgent need to bring a balance between this right and the right to freedom of religion and belief. One’s right to freedom of opinion and expression must not trample on the human rights of others and their dignity.
KATHARINA ROSE, of the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, said that following the visit by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health in 2005 to Uganda, he had recommended that Uganda establish a Right to Health Unit that was responsible for monitoring policies, programmes, and projects related to neglected diseases. Uganda was pleased to announce that it had in fact established a Right to Health Unit in the Directorate of Monitoring and Inspections in 2007. Amongst many responsibilities, the Unit also had to prepare annual reports to Parliament to highlight any progress made in the realization of the right to health with realistic and practical recommendations. In its aim to promote a human rights based approach to the planning and implementation of health services, the Unit was currently being funded by the United Nations Development Programme under its CPAP Programme.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that the Movement against Racism shared the views of the Special Rapporteur that the freedom of expression was a fundamental right. In the non-autonomous territory of Western Sarah, many violations of the right to freedom of expression were found. Various sources attested to the fact that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was under pressure not to publish the report on the visit in the territory. The French Minister had said last week that freedom of thought was an important right. Countries should never go backwards. Morocco had shown its wish to be active in the Council and in the defence of human rights. Morocco should join the request for the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to publish the report of the visit to Western Sahara. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should keep its independence towards the Human Rights Council and towards other States.
CAROLINA AMADOR PEREZ, of the Federation of Cuban Women, said the Federation had the privilege to meet with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food during which he heard their explanation about the activities being undertaken in the area of developing the social and labor community, and in particular the efforts to give equality to women. The Federation of Cuban Women had taken many steps to initiate health programmes with a special emphasis on maternal and child healthcare and paying particular attention to pregnant women and mothers. Through its programmes in providing prophylactics for anemic women, it was noted that treatment was provided free of cost. It was noted that Cuban women were active in food production in the non-sugar cane area. The Federation of Cuban Women was part of a group supporting rural women carrying out activities supporting education and public awareness programmes, particularly as regards food production.
ESTHER WOLF, of Foodfirst Information and Action Network, said that the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, was commended for his efforts in promoting food security and raising awareness to the challenges of ensuring the right to food. In particular, peasants were the most important cases to consider with regards to the right to food as they remained the most malnourished and were oftentimes the poorest and most marginalized parts of society. In addition, the moratorium on agro-fuels would be an important tool to address the long-term risks associated with biofuels.
ROY W. BROWN, of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, said that the Union regretted that the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression was standing down. Regarding permissible limitations to freedom of expression, it was encouraging that the Special Rapporteur had mentioned the need of sensitivity in his report. In this context, attempts by some States to further restrict freedom of expression, by making human rights subject to religious law, were seen with alarm. Such restriction elevated faith above human rights. States were urged to reject such attempts.
ANITA GOH, of Amnesty International, noted that Amnesty International had published a report on Sri Lanka concerning the freedom of opinion and expression. Since the resumption of armed conflict in 2006, threats to the media and media freedom had become very serious and there had been reports of at least ten media workers having been unlawfully killed. While most of the members of the media who had been targeted were from the Tamil community, since 2006 government officials and pro-government Tamil armed groups had been increasingly targeting journalists of the majority Sinhalese community. Other serious obstacles to media freedom included the closure of newspapers and censorship and intimidation. Investigations into these killings had shown little progress. Amnesty International urged the Government of Sri Lanka to accept a visit of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances at the earliest convenience suitable to the Group.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; and Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that every five seconds, a child under the age of 10 died because of malnutrition. This was the equivalent to the deaths of 18,000 children a day. The dire situation of food security was solely due to the will of States, who were responsible for perpetuating this injustice. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, was indeed right in underlining the incoherence and inconsistency of the United Nations system and that of its Member States. Finally, the Centre pointed out the absurdity of an economic system that continued to privilege the concentration of property in the hands of a small minority, effectively condemning to death the world’s peasants, who still constituted half of humanity.
RAJWANT VIRK, of Human Rights Advocates, said that the right to food could not be separated from the right to water. It constituted an important element for the enjoyment of the right to food. The right to water was also fulfilling the right to life, health and housing. 1.1 billion people in the world did currently not have access to safe water. It was imperative to give effect to the right to water. All States had to develop legislation on water. Private third parties had to take into account this right in pursuing their activities and should be held responsible for any violations. States should ensure that transnational cooperation did not interfere with the enjoyment of the right to water.
AABADILA SEMLALI, of Centrist Democratic International, referring to the work of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression, noted that there were thousands of people languishing in the prisons in Western Sahara merely for attempting to exercise their right to freedom of expression. Many of these persons were in the Tindouf camp and were living in an untenable situation and deprived of expressing their freedom of opinion. The cases of individuals who were killed or forcibly disappeared for speaking up was also raised. It was noted that more than 100 Sahrawis had organized a parallel congress to give voice to those imprisoned. Others were persecuted because they expressed an opinion against the State of Morocco. Recent negotiations saw the situation to be serious.
GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters without Borders - International, commended the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which drew stark attention to the ever-spiralling numbers of murderous attacks on journalists, arbitrary detentions of reporters and web-loggers, as well as summary trials on trumped up charges of defamation followed by imprisonment or ruinously heavy fines. Reporters Without Borders also shared and reiterated the Special Rapporteur’s urge for minimal restrictions on freedom of expression while offering wise advice to those who may not weigh the full consequences of publications which offended cultural and religious sensitivities.
PIERRE MIOT, of International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for his work, particularly for having highlighted the question of food sovereignty. As stated in his report, 70 per cent of people living in rural areas were suffering from hunger. The Special Rapporteur had drawn to the attention of the Commission that food sovereignty should be considered as another solution for agriculture, so that States could honour the right to food. The concept of food sovereignty was a new concept and opened a genuine hope for the effective realisation of the right to food. Since 1996 this concept had been defended by many non-governmental organizations. It was tackling head on the neo-liberal policy of financial institutions. Food sovereignty was the right for people to feed themselves and to choose themselves their own agricultural and food policy. This was contrary to the actual world trade logic. It was rejecting the model of an industrial agriculture. The International Federation asked which legal channels could be used to establish food sovereignty as a main policy guideline for agriculture?
Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteurs
PAUL HUNT, Special Rapporteur on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, in concluding remarks, thanked all delegations for comments and questions posed to him and said he would be available for further consultations. Regarding questions posed on the draft guidelines on pharmaceutical companies, he recalled that his report stated the intention for States to adopt these guidelines. Pharmaceutical companies had a major impact on the right to health, often it was positive, but something it was not. The guidelines were aimed for these companies to improve their activities, and to especially benefit those living in poverty.
With regard to Sweden’s human rights activities, the Special Rapporteur noted that since the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945, and reinforced since then, States had some responsibility to work towards improving the lives of all. He said he could not accept that this commitment was purely moral and political. Responding to questions on how to engage more with health workers, it was noted that there was a willingness of the health workers to learn, but it was necessary to spell out to them how they could improve their work and States should raise human rights at health meetings, such as at the World Health Organization Assembly.
As to the impact of traditional practices, there was no doubt that these could lead to discrimination in some cases in the provision of health services. On maternal mortality there were clear health policies and efforts being undertaken worldwide to improve maternal mortality rates. If a country had a functioning health system it would benefit not only women, but all. This issue was not just a challenge for low and middle-income countries but also for upper income countries as well. There was a disproportionate number of women from ethnic minorities living in poverty who were dying. It was hoped that the international community would rise to the challenges in looking at this vital issue.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in concluding remarks, thanked all the delegations that supported his mandate and contributed to its success. He addressed three specific questions, the first of which was asked by the Ambassador of Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference. This had to do with the role of transnational corporations on the right to food. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development had made an inventory of 85,000 transnational companies and the five largest ones were much more powerful in terms of annual revenue than most countries in the world. They were beyond the control of this Council. One positive step to reducing the power of multinational corporations was the guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on human rights and multinationals, which should be signed by as many Governments as possible. The Human Rights Council had not yet focussed on this problem and had accepted to prepare an inventory of ombudsmen and officials but there was a great need for a regulatory framework and a Special Rapporteur on this issue as these non-state actors had become incredibly powerful in recent years.
The second point of order raised by Mr. Ziegler referred to the report on Cuba, which raised a great deal of interest in the Council. Cuba was engaged in a process of in depth reform of its agricultural sector. The causes were different from most other countries. Cuba boasted some 500,000 university students, which was double the number in Switzerland with regards to population. If children of farmers became scientists, biologists and lawyers, they would not stay on the land. The same applied to the market.
In response to the final question, Mr. Ziegler said the African Group had asked about the increase in hunger. The Brussels Commission was seeking to impose economic partnership agreements with developing countries, which in effect imposed pure liberalization of their agricultural industries. These negotiations must not continue as they amounted to blackmailing. Moreover, Western powers should establish coherence on these issues to gradually abolish export subsidies. After the Hong Kong conference, nothing had been done. Three years later, agricultural dumping and export subsidies continued and they were destroying the agricultural development of developing countries.
AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in concluding remarks, said that, concerning the remarks of Ukraine, nobody had any doubts about the multicultural society of Ukraine, and nobody had cast this society as racist, but his focus on the racist attacks had mainly been because of the restriction of expression of minorities in the country. He stood by his recommendations and hoped that they would be taken into account. On freedom of expression and the respect of religion, many delegations had pointed out the importance of exercising this right with care. Freedom of expression was not absolute. He had often reminded this. Infringing this was not creating a peaceful dialogue between communities. Various existing legal frameworks could offer remedies to this problem. He agreed that cases of expression of hate against religions had to be vehemently condemned. On the criminalization of defamation, there was an annex in his report about this topic. On the issue of the Danish cartoon, he had made a visit to Denmark, and had made a report on this topic in the past. He thanked the Maldives for their invitation.
Right of Reply
SHARINDRA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, referring to the statement by Amnesty International, recalled that the report by Amnesty International alleged threats to media and media freedom. The report was totally misplaced and Amnesty International failed to acknowledge the many positive steps taken by the Government to ensure freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka, as well as its efforts to combat terrorism. There were over 40 media outlets in the country indicating the status of freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, of these only four were Government-owned outlets.
VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine), speaking in a right of reply, said that he insisted that the Special Rapporteur’s statement about racist violence in Ukraine was completely untrue and that it was not substantiated by any facts. The report did not refer to any sources on which he had based these allegations. Also, the Special Rapporteur’s allegations did not fall into the scope of his mandate.
____________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: