HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS, FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION AND HEALTH

Human Rights Council
MORNING
3 June 2009

The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

In concluding remarks, Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said the European Union had stressed the need for more invitations to visit States. The mandate had indeed received a number of invitations and he was not able to undertake all the visits, given the restrictions of the mandate, which meant that only a couple of visits a year could be accomplished. In contrast, in some cases he had requested visits and had not received invitations. He therefore encouraged more States to extend invitations because they were most helpful. It was very important for the Council to adopt the draft principles on military justice. He further stressed the importance of United Nations archives in establishing international principles and norms. In farewell, he thanked all – States, non-governmental organizations and others – for their cooperation in fulfilling his mandate.

Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in concluding remarks said he would not depart from his mandate, nor from the international instruments behind it, rather he would stick to them closely. The right should be interpreted in a complete way, regarding the implementation of all human rights, as the right to freedom of expression was fundamental to the enjoyment of all other rights. He also intended to go into the limits of the right. Limitations were important, and should be established and clarified with all regional groups, but limitations on the exercise of a right should be an exception rather than a rule, and this was why his report sought to bring out the positive side of the right to freedom of expression, clarifying that limitations were sometimes necessary and timely. Protection of the press should not just mean physical protection, but also of their access to information. With regards to the issue of poverty, he had never wished to give the impression that poor countries were at a disadvantage and had fewer rights, quite the contrary. Poverty applied to all countries, as all had pockets of poverty.

Anand Grover, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, in concluding remarks said that most comments needed a written response, for example comments on the role of non-state actors on the access to health in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Regarding the general comment by the United States and Switzerland, who said that his recommendations tried to weaken the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, he wanted to clarify that and said that his recommendations were within the flexibility of this agreement. Incremental innovation was actually favoured by the system in place in the United States and enormous profits were made through small changes that would then be patented again. Mr. Grover said that this should not be possible. On maternal mortality, he said that he would take up the issue and continue working on it. As for water and sanitation, Mr. Grover said that this would be an issue for the future and was a sine qua non for the access to health.

In the interactive dialogue, speakers, taking up the issue of independence of the judges and lawyers, welcomed that the report of Mr. Despouy encompassed not only challenges and problems in the sphere of provision of independence of judges and lawyers, but also reflected recent tendencies in this sphere. The Special Rapporteur was asked, in his endeavours to support the independence of judges, had he given consideration to best practices with respect to codes of ethics for judges that eliminated conflicts of interest? Speakers shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur at the absence of official replies to communications sent to concerned States and his call to such countries to provide, in record time, answers to communications sent to them. Some pledged to take the necessary action to conform to his request. The Special Rapporteur was thanked for his report. Speakers underlined the vital role of the independence of judges and lawyers in achieving a proper balance of the powers of the State to achieve democracy. Any democratic society was responsible for guaranteeing the independence of judges and lawyers at all levels of the justice system. A speaker said the final report of the Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers was very helpful, and he should be congratulated for the extraordinary success he had enjoyed during his term.

On the freedom of opinion and expression, there were two diverging positions. Some speakers said that the Special Rapporteur had not breached the terms of the code of conduct, and the Council should not support attacks on his integrity and work. Only continued dialogue could help to overcome existing gaps in perceptions, concepts and ideas. How could one ask an independent expert to promote and defend a freedom while ordering him to examine the very abuses that the exercise of this freedom could entail? The question of freedom of opinion and expression through the mass media was particularly important and topical, particularly today when the media provided considerable obstacles to the exercise of this right. The Special Rapporteur should study further the right to objective and reliable information, and the restrictions that existed to the right, and the responsibility of the press. Speakers reiterated the importance of support to and cooperation with the work of the Special Rapporteurs and in preserving their independence and freedom to pursue their work within clear and balanced parameters. The independence of the special procedures remained vital to their effectiveness as a mechanism of this Council and this should be respected.

Other speakers expressed disappointment with the conclusions and recommendations of the latest report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression for the absence of any fresh, concrete ideas, on the two areas of work that the Special Rapporteur had chosen for priority, namely access to information in situations of extreme poverty, and safety and protection of media professionals. Speakers said they were surprised that Special Rapporteur did not take into account amendments that had been made to his mandate. The question was raised on whether the Special Rapporteur had the right to breach or ignore his mandate. The Special Rapporteur was the one who received instructions from the Council, and not the contrary. He should cease from attempts to re-determine or re-negotiate his mandate, and should be impelled to abide by the code of conduct, as were other Special Rapporteurs. All mandate holders should strictly adhere to their mandate in preparing their reports, as set out in the Council resolution. Freedom of opinion and expression was important; however, equally to other rights and freedoms, it was not an absolute right and thus a balance needed to the struck.

With regard to the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, speakers said the consideration in the report of the impact of the agreement of the World Trade Organization on intellectual property linked to access to medicines showed that further consideration of the topic needed to be taken up in the context of the responsibility of non-State actors, particularly international pharmaceutical companies. There was need to stimulate the production of new medicines and broaden the disbursement of these medicines to the countries that needed them the most. Concerning the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, flexibilities were necessary, especially in the case of least developed countries. On patents, there was a need to strengthen intellectual property policies and speakers welcomed the idea of benefiting from the transitional period before entering the World Trade Organization. Access to affordable medicine as a shared responsibility should be upheld for developing countries and others in order to ensure the fulfilment of the right to health. In addition to expressing support for this mandate, speakers asked the Special Rapporteur how he planned to address the issue of maternal mortality with respect to his mandate? Availability and accessibility of quality medicines was important, but affordability, namely the high price of medicines, was the major obstacle in the realisation of the right to health. Generic industries in developing countries should be encouraged to produce cheaper, but quality, medicines.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, India, Slovenia, France, Djibouti, the Philippines, the United Arab emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, the United States, Mexico, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Canada, Italy, Pakistan, Peru, Jordan, Switzerland, Turkey, Yemen, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Hungary, Thailand, Greece, Denmark, Argentina, Norway, Algeria, Australia, brazil, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, the Maldives, New Zealand, Morocco, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, Malaysia, the European Commission, Palestine, Qatar and Chile.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Union of Arab Jurists, Asian Legal resource Centre, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, International Commission of Jurists, Society for Threatened Peoples, Action Canada for Population and Development, Human Rights Council of Australia, Amnesty International, Conectas Direitos Humanos, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Association for World Citizens and Reporters Without Borders.

At the beginning of the meeting, the President of the Council, Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, said it was with great sorrow and profound regret that he announced that two members of the Brazilian NGO Viva Rio were on board the aircraft that crashed on Sunday between Brazil and France. Their final destination was Geneva, to participate in the Council meeting. The President had undertaken a visit to Brazil last month, and the report of that visit would be submitted during the session. During that visit, he visited a Viva Rio project, and saw the commitment of the NGO to improving the lives and situation in the shanty towns of Rio. He shared in the personal pain and grief of the NGO at the loss of the lives of their colleagues. The Human Rights Council offered its condolences to all the families of the victims of the tragedy.

The Council today is holding back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. During its afternoon meeting, the Council will take up the reports of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women.


Interactive Dialogue

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said the report of Mr. Grover on the right to health was commended. This right was a fundamental right, including not only provision of appropriate medical care but also access to adequate conditions in hospitals, food, and the possibility to receive necessary medicine. The consideration in the report of the impact of the agreement of the World Trade Organization on intellectual property linked to access to medicines showed that further consideration of the topic needed to be taken up in the context of the responsibility of non-State actors, particularly international pharmaceutical companies. The Special Rapporteur should enter into close cooperation and coordinate his work with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations. The right to freedom of expression was the most important element in the concept of human rights, and it was difficult to overestimate the role it had played in the building of modern civilisation, and to overestimate the power that freedom of speech could have with both positive and negative effects. It required further study. The question of freedom of opinion and expression through the mass media was particularly important and topical, particularly today. The Special Rapporteur should study further the right to objective and reliable information, the restrictions that existed to the right, and the responsibility of the press.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) said that the report of Mr. Despouy encompassed not only challenges and problems in the sphere of provision of independence of judges and lawyers, but also reflected recent tendencies in this sphere. The Government of Azerbaijan paid special attention to the development of an independent judiciary. Most of the recommendations in the report had already been implemented in Azerbaijan. It had managed to upgrade its legal system inherited from the Soviet Union within a short period of time. The Special Rapporteur had highlighted the involvement of the judiciary in the drafting of its budget as one of the elements for ensuring the independence of the judiciary. What measures did the Special Rapporteur consider to be important for efficient realization of independence of the judiciary in that regard? Azerbaijan reiterated the readiness of the Government to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and to receive him in Azerbaijan.

ACHAMKULANGARE GOPINATHAN (India) thanked all three Special Rapporteur for their reports. With regard to the report on the right to health, the Special Rapporteur said affordable access to medicines for what were life-threatening diseases was an indispensable part of the right to health and it was the duty of Governments to ensure such access, both in terms of availability and affordability. India concurred with the view that the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights did not in any way undermine the legitimate right of Governments to formulate their own public health policies and implement them by adopting measures to protect public health. In fact, the Doha Declaration on Public Health affirmed that the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights “could and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of Governments’ rights to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all”. India attached great importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and valued the continuing of the work of the Rapporteur in highlighting the violations of that right. Despite this, India expressed disappointment with the conclusions and recommendations of the latest report for the absence of any fresh, concrete ideas, on the two areas of work that the Special Rapporteur had chosen for priority, namely access to information in situation of extreme poverty, and safety and protection of media professionals.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) said Slovenia was a strong supporter of the independence of all Special Procedure mandate holders from political interference - it was solely on the mandate holders themselves to decide how best to organise their work to successfully implement their mandates within the existing terms. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression had not breached the terms of the code of conduct, and the Council should not support attacks on his integrity and work. Only continued dialogue could help to overcome existing gaps in perceptions, concepts and ideas. The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a significant indicator of the level of protection and respect of all other human rights in a given society. On 9 February 2009, jointly with 10 other independent experts, the Special Rapporteur had issued a joint press statement about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka - had there been any follow-up to the offer of assistance contained therein, taking into account that due to the recent end of fighting and the conclusion of a twenty-six year old civil war, the broader political circumstances in Sri Lanka had changed.

DANIEL VOSGIEN (France) said that France attached great importance to the freedom of expression and opinion which constituted the cornerstone of all other freedoms. France considered the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression of singular importance. One aspect of the mandate was especially problematic: how could one ask an independent expert to promote and defend a freedom while ordering him to examine the very abuses that the exercise of this freedom could entail? France applauded the attention that the Special Rapporteur gave to the situations of journalists in armed conflict. France was particularly active in that area and was also financing action through the French Red Cross to protect journalists in armed conflict. France asked whether the Special Rapporteur was working together with the International Committee of the Red Cross on that issue.

ABBAS DAHER DJAMA (Djibouti) extended thanks to the Special Rapporteurs for their presentations and the information contained in their reports. In particular, Djibouti appreciated and welcomed the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health. Djibouti agreed with the Rapporteur that there was need to stimulate the production of new medicines and broaden the disbursement of these medicines to the countries that needed them the most. Djibouti agreed that concerning the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, flexibilities were necessary, especially in the case of least developed countries. Djibouti asked the Special Rapporteur what in his view were the different programmes for least developed countries to transition from their current status?

ERLINDA F. BASILIO (Philippines) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, its thematic focus on access to information in situations of extreme poverty was very interesting. The Special Rapporteur noted that people affected by chronic extreme poverty risked becoming socially excluded from full participation in the societies in which they lived - such problems persisted in both developed and developing countries. Access to information could be a means towards securing equitable participation of marginalised groups and accountability. Careful thought should be given as to how to empower the poor to partake in the benefits of globalisation and the information revolution. Such efforts could not be extracted from the broader development discourse, and the urgent need to bridge the digital divide. The needs of developing countries for financing, investment, education and capacity-building to effectively participate in the global information society had to be taken into account, for these were among the most formidable barriers to the access of those living in extreme poverty to information and to enable their voices to be heard and their views expressed.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the Arab Group believed that the independence of judges was based on international law. The report stated that it was necessary to give civil immunity to judges. What measures were being adopted to implement this? The Arab Group was surprised that Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue had spoken about cases where there had been violations of the freedom of expression and that he did not take into account amendments that had been made by the Arab Group and approved by the Council to his mandate. The Arab Group stressed the need to work in compliance with the adopted documents. It expressed its dissatisfaction because the Special Rapporteur had gone beyond his mandate when talking about questions of religion. On patents and the right to health, the Arab Group added that there was a need to strengthen intellectual property policies and welcomed the idea of benefiting from the transitional period before entering the World Trade Organization.

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) aligned itself with the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. Saudi Arabia was astonished about what was contained in the report. With regard to paragraph 24 of the report on the defamation of religion, terrorism and extremism, the Special Rapporteur referred to a joint statement on the defamation of religion that took place in a meeting that was outside the United Nations and thus was in contradiction to the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and went outside the scope of his mandate. It was not his mandate to advise the Human Rights Council to abstain from adopting a resolution on the defamation of religion. The Rapporteur was ignoring points on terrorism and extremism, and remained focused on defamation of religion. All mandate holders should strictly adhere to their mandate in preparing their reports, as set out in the Council resolution. Saudi Arabia upheld that the freedom of opinion and expression was important; however, equally to other rights and freedoms, it was not an absolute right and thus a balance needed to the struck.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said Egypt accepted the appointment of the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of freedom of expression in view of the assurances of the President of the Council on the commitment of Mr. La Rue to his mandate. Egypt had hoped the report of the Special Rapporteur would be an element returning the Council to consensus on the matter. However, it had been surprised at the many procedural and substantive breaches in the report, which ignored an important element in the mandate - the amendment calling on him to include in his report examples in which the freedom of opinion was used for purposes of defamation of religion. The report did not include in any way any reference to such cases. This raised the question as to whether the Special Rapporteur had the right to breach or ignore his mandate. The Special Rapporteur was the one who received instructions from the Council, and not the contrary. He should cease from attempts to re-determine or re-negotiate his mandate, and should be impelled to abide by the code of conduct, as were other Special Rapporteurs.

IFEANYI NWOSY (Nigeria) said that Nigeria shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers at the absence of official replies to communication sent to concerned State and his call in such countries to provide, in record time, answers to communication sent to them. Nigeria would take the necessary action to conform to his request. On promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Nigeria believed that future reports should, as pledged by the Special Rapporteur, aim to further develop thematic issues related to the fundamental right of freedom of opinion and expression. Nigeria supported the need for Governments to create enabling environments to allow free and fair information to flow more effectively to civil society. Nigeria emphasized that this should be done through universally agreed principles and resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the Council. This should also be the framework and mandate of operation of the Special Rapporteur. Nigeria wanted to hear from the Rapporteur how freedom of expression could be better used to enhance awareness of poverty, its root causes and how to address it.

MARK C. STORELLA (United States) strongly supported the Human Rights Council’s special mechanisms, and greatly valued the ability of these and other thematic mandates which drew attention to critical human rights issues. The United States welcomed the report of Mr. Frank La Rue and reaffirmed its support for his independence and that of all rapporteurs and working groups. The United States noted with concern the trend noted by Mr. La Rue of State interference in editorial independence of the media and welcomed his focus on the media in conflict situations, and on access to information. He reiterated the importance of support to and cooperation with the work of the Special Rapporteurs and in preserving their independence and freedom to pursue their work within clear and balanced parameters. The code of conduct stated that mandate holders shall evaluate all information in the light of internationally recognized human rights standards relevant to their mandate and of international conventions. The United States noted with appreciation the report of Mr. Despouy and asked, in his endeavours to support the independence of judges, had he given consideration to best practices with respect to codes of ethics for judges that eliminated conflicts of interest?

VICTORIA ROMERO (Mexico) said it was particularly relevant to note that the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the freedom of opinion and expression had taken up the issue of poverty - if the voices of those living in poverty were strengthened, this would provide them with an essential means of getting out of poverty, as this was a vital tool for their empowerment. Had the Special Rapporteur considered taking up the right of access to information and its impact on other rights, the speaker asked. With regards to restrictions or limits on the freedom of expression, this was constantly under debate, and the Special Rapporteur, within his mandate and in consistency with it, could and should take up discussions relevant to international human rights standards, and should take up such substantive issues in his report. Each person had the right to the highest possible standard of physical and mental health, and Mexico spared no efforts to this regard, taking action to implement a plan on confining the contamination of Influenza A H1N1. Any measures taken in the context of a pandemic should be taken in full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers was officially invited to carrying out a mission to Mexico with the aim of acquainting himself with the situation there.

ZHOU XIANFENG (China) said that China was willing to have a frank dialogue with all three Special Rapporteurs that had presented their reports. China hoped that the Special Rapporteurs would respect every country’s social, cultural and political background when they were examining them. The right to health was one of the most important economic and social and cultural rights. China had made an effort to establish an effective health system to provide access to health care to all Chinese citizens, especially, but not only, in urban areas. Recently, a food safety law was adopted and a call-back system for food products was installed in order to guarantee safe food.

ALVARO AYALA (Colombia) thanked all the Special Rapporteurs for their reports. With regard to the independence of judges and lawyers, this was enshrined in the Constitution and was a major pillar for guaranteeing democracy in the country and thus Colombia endorsed this mandate. Any democratic society was responsible for guaranteeing the independence of judges and lawyers at all levels of the justice system. In Colombia the highest courts were able to develop extensive jurisdiction in promoting and protecting human rights and fighting any form of discrimination. The Supreme Court, in particular, was developing packaged constitutionality which would embed into domestic law any agreement or international instrument in which Colombia was party to. With regard to freedom of expression, Colombia had a great commitment to this mandate. In all instances, the Government condemned anything that hindered freedom of expression, and promoted human rights for journalists, union workers and all citizens in the country. In addition to expressing support for this mandate, the Special Rapporteur was asked how he planned to address the issue of maternal mortality with respect to his mandate?

KAMAPRADIPTA ISNOMO (Indonesia) commended the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers for its detailed overview of all the factors and aspects which were necessary to establishing the independence of judges and lawyers as a power separate and distinct from the executive power of government. This independence was a crucial prerequisite for democracy and the rule of law, but should be balanced with competence, integrity, and values. The Special Rapporteur should elaborate on some of his remarks in the report in which he recommended the creation of a mechanism to allocate court cases objectively, noting that they were often not conducted in this way. With regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the efforts made were recognised, however there was concern that the insights and recommendations were often based on opinions, rather than on facts. Indonesia believed that initiatives could only be contemplated if they complied with the scope of the mandate, and the Special Rapporteur's reaffirmation of his mandate yesterday was welcomed. It was regretted that he saw fit to associate himself with the joint declaration on freedom of religion as mentioned in paragraph 24 of the report, which was at variance with the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. The Special Rapporteur should explain how the declaration should be interpreted, and what motivated him to endorse it. On the report on the right to health, access to affordable medicine as a shared responsibility should be upheld for developing countries and others in order to ensure the fulfilment of the right to health.

VICTORIA BERRY (Canada) said that Canada had noted with interest the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression’s focus on access to information in situations of extreme poverty. Systemic obstacles to freedom of expression that were associated with conditions of poverty, including low levels of education and literacy, poor infrastructure, and lack of access to electricity and communications services, highlighted the indivisibility of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The Special Rapporteur recommended community broadcasting as a vital tool for the voiceless. Canada asked him to elaborate on ways in which Governments could increase access to basic communication tools for vulnerable and marginalized groups. Special Rapporteurs were free to address any issue within their mandate. States were free to agree or disagree with the views expressed in their reports. However, the independence of the special procedures remained vital to their effectiveness as a mechanism of this Council and this should be respected.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. Italy was aware of the vital role of the independence of judges and lawyers in achieving a proper balance of the powers of the State to achieve democracy. In Italy the defence of these principles were part of the values and enshrined in the Constitution. All the parameters and recommendations made in the report were incorporated into practice in Italy. On freedom of expression, Italy supported the independence of the holders of special procedures. Collecting and verifying information received should be in a balanced manner and this was important for the code of conduct and such standards. One could agree or not with the statements of the Special Rapporteur. The focus proposed by the Rapporteur with regard to access to information for those living in extreme poverty would affect negatively those countries that were least developed.

MUHAMMAD SAEED SARWAR (Pakistan) said the two reports of the Special Rapporteurs on the right to health and on independence of judges and lawyers had brought to fore some important issues relating to their mandates. The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers carried out an apt analysis of necessary parameters to guarantee independence of judges and made pertinent recommendations to strengthen both its individual and institutional dimensions. His recommendations on the procedure of appointment and tenure security were valued - appointment of an adequate number of judges and provision of sufficient funding with financial autonomy would lead to speedy justice as well as safeguard against executive pressures. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Pakistan agreed that availability and accessibility of quality medicines was important, but affordability, namely the high price of medicines, was the major obstacle in the realisation of the right to health. Generic industries in developing countries should be encouraged to produce cheaper, but quality, medicines. Similarly, transfer of technology to developing countries should be encouraged to strengthen their domestic medicine manufacturing capacity.

CARLOS SIBILLE RIVERA (Peru) said that the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression had shown a special interest in the access to information in situations of extreme poverty, which Peru shared, as well as the interest of protecting journalists. The access to public information was a vital prerequisite for the functioning of democracy, transparency and greater public management. In a representative and participative democratic system, citizens exercised their constitutional rights of political participation, voting, education, and association, among others, through a broad freedom of expression and the free access to information. Clearly, people who lived in extreme poverty had greater barriers to exercise those rights and receive and transmit information. Peru suggested that Mr. La Rue further develop the mechanisms that guaranteed the access to information for those living in extreme poverty. Peru reiterated its support for the Special Rapporteur’s work and expressed its gratitude for the report.

MUTAZ HYASSAT (Jordan) thanked the mandate-holders for their interesting presentations. In connection with the presentation on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Jordan asked if the Special Rapporteur could kindly elaborate more on the issue of disciplining judges including through giving examples on independent bodies or mechanisms charged with disciplining judges, and how effective could such a body or mechanism discharge its mandate in an impartial manner? With regard to the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, paragraph 36 of his report had proposed developing an online training programme for media personnel on freedom of expression, human rights and multiculturalism with the aim to address some of the main concerns raised by various stakeholders on hate speech, intolerance and discrimination. Jordan asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate more on his proposal and whether discrimination against persons with disabilities had been well taken into consideration.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, his contribution to the work of the Council was of great use, in particular with regards to the area of transitional justice. The recommendation on continuous training of judges was supported - it was fundamental for them to continue to receive training in human rights. With regards to the report on freedom of expression, this was a priority for Switzerland, and the approach of the Special Rapporteur was vital for better understanding of this fundamental right. The prospects for the work to be carried out was important as it allowed to take up different facets of the freedom of expression, however the global dimension and the challenges facing this report should not be ignored. With regards to the report on the right to health, access to medicine was an integral part of the right, and incorporating this into national strategies should take into account the situations of developing countries where the need for medicines to tackle certain endemic diseases was very great. The report mentioned that insufficient market incentives was the main factor explaining the lack of research and the non-development of medicine, and this should be further elaborated. The system of special procedures was one of the most valuable mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, and Special Rapporteurs should work in the spirit of frankness, integrity, and independence, as only in this way could progress be made in protecting and promoting human rights in the field.

ALI ONANER (Turkey) said that Turkey attached great importance to the promotion of freedom of opinion and expression. In recent years, important legislative progress had been achieved with regard to the exercise of this right. Turkey believed that the freedom of opinion and expression should be promoted universally without making any distinction between individual countries or groups of countries depending on their level of economic development. Turkey also believed that the consensual outcome of the Durban Review Conference, according to which any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement should be prohibited by law, could guide the efforts of the Special Rapporteur. Safety and protection of media professionals was one of the crucial elements for the enjoyment of the freedom of expression. The main provisions protecting journalists in situations of armed conflict came from humanitarian law. Having noted the suggestion concerning the drafting of guidelines for the protection of journalists and other media professions, Turkey asked the Special Rapporteur to further elaborate on the added value of these guidelines.

M. FADHL AL-MAGHAFI (Yemen) supported the statement made by the Arab Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and welcomed the efforts made by Special Rapporteur on the right to opinion and expression. The principles and norms affirmed by the Council set out the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs clearly and concisely. Special Rapporteurs should refrain from selectiveness and should consider all international instruments and States when examining issues, and refrain from confining their work to one region of countries or specific instruments only. Yemen stressed that the challenges they faced with regard to the field of health were daunting, not only as a national problem, but it was also a worldwide issue as the world was connected through economic relations. In the last few years, the world learned about pandemics such as swine flu. Yemen supported the recommendations contained in the report related to access to medicines for all which was also a Millennium Development Goal.

FELIX PENA RAMOS (Venezuela) said with regards to the report on the independence of judges and lawyers, Venezuela was a democratic and just State, ruled by law with full compliance to the separation of powers. The State was making efforts to eradicate provisionality, promoting judicial careers and competitive exams in the allocation of jobs. The Supreme Court had made rulings on the claims of provisional judges, with full respect to due process and rights under law. Venezuela would like to cooperate with and contribute to the mandate. There was freedom of the press in Venezuela, with no restrictions, and no journalist had suffered in carrying out his or her job. There were private media companies who were trying to undermine social cohesion and peace, giving rise to anguish and unrest in the population, distorting the facts with various opinions that were biased and tested the freedoms of the country. In recent press releases, the Special Rapporteur had come out negatively on the freedom of expression in the country, based on biased reports, without giving the Government a chance to refute these. Full interaction and dialogue had to be implemented for the carrying-out in full of his mandate. Venezuela wished to cooperate with him further.

JEAN FEYDER (Luxembourg) said that it was unacceptable that two billion human beings did not have access to medications that could be essential to save their lives. The protection of public health must prevail over private interests. Bilateral trade agreements and investment agreement should be concluded respecting the provisions provided by the agreements on intellectual property by the World Trade Organization and the Declaration of Doha 2001 or should be brought to conformity with them. Any limitations in time of these provisions should be avoided. Luxembourg invited the Special Rapporteur to further monitor that situation. Luxembourg also welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations for developing countries and also the least developed countries to strengthen their position through adoption of legislation in matters of intellectual property.

CHRISTOFFER BERG (Sweden) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. La Rue, for his comprehensive and thought-provoking report. Sweden supported the independence of all special procedure mandate holders. How the mandate holders wished to organize their work to achieve implementation of their mandates was up to the mandate holders concerned to decide, and Sweden encouraged States to invite and actively cooperation with the special procedure mandate holders. Sweden attached great importance to the right of freedom of opinion and expression, and was pleased to see focus on the safety and protection of media professionals in the report. All over the world, journalists were abducted, silenced and killed. Security Council Resolution 1738 expressed deep concern at the frequency of acts of violence in many parts of the world against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel in armed conflict. The Rapporteur recommended that further attention be drawn to this resolution. Sweden asked the Special Rapporteur if he could tell them which actions he recommended States could perform in order to implement the resolution? Also, how could non-conflict countries come to terms with these problems?

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the United Kingdom was a strong supporter of the independence and integrity of special procedure mandate holders, and was concerned by some of the comments made during this interactive dialogue that would appear to seek to contradict that approach. Mandate holders had to decide how best to implement their mandates - how they wished to organise their work was a decision for them alone. Freedom of expression was a fundamental human right: the extent to which it was enjoyed could provide a reliable indicator of the level of protection and respect for all human rights in a given society. It was essential to effectively tackle discrimination and corruption, to promote freedom of religion and the right to education. A society that was empowered with open information was better placed to advocate for a more impartial and transparent service delivery, and had a greater sense of participation and ownership in decision-making processes. Problems surrounding access to information affected civil society in all parts of the world. While States bore responsibility for ensuring that human rights were protected within their jurisdiction, businesses should also ensure that they conducted their activities in a manner that was consistent with enjoyment of human rights. Pharmaceutical companies should support objective reporting on their access to medicines commitments.

RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka) said that it was important that the Special Rapporteurs worked within their mandate and followed the instructions of this Council. Independence was important but had to be used responsibly. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression should pay more attention to racial hatred and interpret the concept of racial discrimination broadly. Sri Lanka found it difficult to work together with Special Rapporteurs if they came together and were mandated with very different topics. Sri Lanka was grateful that the Special Rapporteur on health had included in full the answers provided by the Government, however, he had not taken them into account for his recommendations without informing the Government. Discipline and responsibility should be exercised with care and Special Rapporteurs should not loan themselves to other agendas.

OMER DAHAB FADOL MOHAMED (Sudan) thanked the Special Rapporteurs for their reports. With regard to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Sudan applied capital punishment as a penalty, which was in its code of penalties and in other conventions. Sudanese courts did not apply capital punishment as a penalty on children less than 18 years of age. Any admission of guilt into court proceedings had to be retracted and corroborated. In addition, any admission of guilt contrary to the law was inadmissible; therefore the courts did follow special procedures. With regard to freedom of expression Sudan strongly believed that in its continued and unabating bid to enhance and protect freedom of expression and opinion, a lot had yet to be achieved within the internationally agreed principles. No one was entitled to assert controversial issues for which general agreement was lacking, let alone challenging the norms which this Council had introduced by virtue of its adopted resolutions. Tolerance did not only mean to accept “the other”, but also to understand “the other”. By doing so, objectivity could be secured and stereotyping could be done away with. Freedom of expression was too valuable to be equated to or compromised by defamation, hatred and intolerance.

KLARA TUNYOGI AKOTS (Hungary) said guarantees for judicial independence were main pillars of the human rights protection system. The establishment of this mandate in 1994 was a significant step towards further strengthening international protection of human rights, the core task of the Human Rights Council. The last report presented a useful and much-needed synthesis of basic parameters necessary for the effective guarantee of the independence of judges, providing a complex tool that could be of much use for the Council in future, a kind of measuring instrument in individual situations. There was also a need for an additional study aiming at bolstering the independence of prosecutors, public defenders, and lawyers. The Special Rapporteur was also commended for carrying out country visits which were an indispensable element for the effective performance of the mandate. Hungary wished to confirm its continued dedication to the cause of strengthening judicial independence, and would continue to take care as a main sponsor of the relevant substantive resolution.

PITCHAYAPHANT CHARNBHUMIDOL (Thailand) said that the right to freedom of opinion and expression was the bedrock of democracy and no undue restrictions should be placed on the exercise of this right. However, international law did recognize a specific limit on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. As the Special Rapporteur mentioned, the challenge was in the identification of the points at which the relevant thresholds were reached for this limitation to be applicable. Promoting a clearer understanding of articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right should be among the high priorities for the Special Rapporteur. With regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, Thailand found itself in complete agreement with the Special Rapporteur. Public health was a top priority for the Thai Government. Thailand’s national health policy aimed to protect and promote the right to health of its citizens as well as displaced persons in Thailand.

ALEXIOS-MARIOS LYBEROPOULOS (Greece) thanked the Special Rapporteurs for their comprehensive presentation of their reports to the Council. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, although Mr. La Rue took up his duties late in 2008, he had already engaged in extensive activities and had given the Council an idea – through his first report to the Council – of his vision with regard to his mandate. Greece appreciated the fact that the Rapporteur had been focusing with this report mainly on two very important issues, access to information in situations of extreme poverty and the safety and protection of journalists and media professionals. Both issues were of particular importance; both must remain a high priority for the United Nations. In this context, Greece shared the view that Security Council resolution 1738, the first specific resolution on the matter of safety and protection of journalists and media professionals in armed conflict, which was adopted in 2006 on the joint initiative of Greece and France, should be given renewed attention. Greece stood ready and willing to push this issue forward. Greece also welcomed the thematic focus the Rapporteur intended to take in his next report and wished him a successful continuation of his mandate.

MARIE-LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) said Denmark welcomed the new Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, and welcomed his first report, including his approach of having an open dialogue with all stakeholders. A continuing interaction would be of fundamental importance to the implementation of the mandate. The added-value of this mandate lay in the mandate holder's independence and impartiality, and he should continue to be guided by these principles. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was to defend, protect, and respect freedom of expression in all its aspects. It was up to the mandate holder to decide what to address and what to focus on - this had never been and should never be an issue which Member States could interfere with. The mandate holder should never be instructed to deviate from the principles of independence and impartiality. The approach of the Special Rapporteur in his report was thus fully supported.

HECTOR RAUL PELAEZ (Argentina) said Argentina especially welcomed the excellent report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. His efforts in cases linked to the development of the judiciary, including relevant issues such as the work of international tribunals or the right to truth, were commendable. Argentina thought it appropriate to look at a development of a comprehensive package of measures strengthening the judiciary. The President of Argentina had recently sent a request to the Senate for the appointment of 60 judges, prosecutors and public defenders. With regard to freedom of expression and opinion, Argentina said that the Special Rapporteur had addressed substantive issues, such as the limits of freedom of expression, protection for journalists in armed conflict and access to information for persons living in extreme poverty. The right to expression included the freedom to search, receive and transmit information, without consideration of borders, be it orally, in written form, printed or in artistic expression, or in any other form.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said with regards to the report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Norway welcomed the focus on access to medicines as an indispensable part of the right to health. In the agenda for the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative, where seven foreign ministers decided to strengthen the efforts to make foreign policy serve public health outcomes, trade and access to medicine had been identified among the ten most critical areas for engagement. Norway agreed with the recommendations that States needed to take steps to facilitate the use of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights flexibilities and should consider to do so, and supported the need to build capacity for making full use of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights flexibilities to promote access to medicines for their populations. Norway asked the Rapporteur how he intended to address the issue of preventable maternal mortality within his mandate.

Norway also welcomed the work and the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and was impressed by his active and constructive approach to this very sensitive mandate and particularly appreciated his active pro-engagement line in the Durban Review Conference. Access to information was fundamental to the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, not only in situations of extreme poverty, but in all parts of the world. Norway asked the Rapporteur if he could elaborate on the responsibility of media in this regard including the importance of independent media?

SELMA MALIKA HENDEL (Algeria) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Algeria was intrigued by the unprecedented action by a mandate-holder to re-interpret his mandate. The resolution establishing the mandate struck a balance between freedom of religion and cases where reporting on this would be an abuse. However, the Special Rapporteur did not respect this. In paragraph five, the Special Rapporteur provided himself with a new mandate with regards to the instruments, and this was inadmissible. The code of conduct said that mandate holders should respect their mandate and were responsible therefore before the Council. The Special Rapporteur was invited to stay in conformity with the resolution establishing his mandate, as well as the code of conduct. Through his attitude as shown in the report, the mandate holder was going against his mandate, with his personal political opinions showing up in the report, harming the recognition of the independent nature of the mandate. This did not contribute to promoting a spirit of tolerance.

KHATERINE WILLCOX (Australia) said that Australia shared the views of the Special Rapporteur on the relationship between freedom of opinion and expression and a democratic environment. Australia was concerned by attempts to place excessive limits on the right of freedom of opinion and expression, particularly when limitations were used by States to restrict criticism and dissent. Australia agreed that limitations should not threaten the exercise of the right itself. The special procedures were an essential human rights mechanism of the Council and their independence must be maintained in order to ensure the proper function of their mandates. Australia encouraged all States to respect and support the independence of the special procedure mandate holders. Regarding the report of the Special Rapporteur on health, Australia stated that the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights supported public health and had sufficient flexibility to deal effectively with and reconcile health policy and trade policy.

ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil) said on the issue of independence of judges and lawyers, Brazil associated itself to the speech delivered by Argentina. The Brazilian Constitution established the basis of the independence of the judiciary in accordance to the recommendations made in the report. The Constitution provided for an independent judicial career, established guarantees for judges’ activities and recognized the principles of administrative and financial autonomy of the judiciary. Brazil congratulated the work carried out by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Despouy, who visited the country in 2004. Freedom of expression was a fundamental human right guaranteed by the federal Constitution of Brazil, which lay in the heart of the country’s democratic process. Whenever there was a conflict between freedom and its restriction, freedom must prevail. Democracy was an un-replaceable value which required equal protection to the freedom of expression and to the dignity of human beings. There should be no contradiction between freedom of expression and human dignity. Mr. La Rue addressed issues of great relevance such as the provision of access to information to people living under vulnerable social situations. Digital inclusion was a citizenship right and must be promoted through public policies aimed at promoting democratic participation. Brazil also supported the conclusions and recommendations regarding safety and protection of media professions.

SUSANNA TERSTAL (Netherlands) said with regards to the allegations by certain members of the Council that Mr. La Rue had overstepped his mandate and had not acted in conformity with the code of conduct, the Netherlands had major problems with these attacks, especially as these were not isolated. In the past there had been arguments against the Special Rapporteur on health, the Special Rapporteur on torture, and more recently the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty. The Netherlands regretted this tendency - some members of the Council seemed unwilling to respect the independence and integrity of United Nations special procedures as soon as the mandate holders concerned made observations that were not to the liking of the members. Mandate holders had to be independent, and it was up to them to decide which areas of key concern within their mandate to identify and how to organise their work. If delegations had questions on the Special Rapporteur's findings, the interactive dialogue was there to engage in an objective discussion on them - but the Special Rapporteur's integrity should not be doubted, even before the dialogue with him began.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers for his sixth comprehensive report to the Human Rights Council. As a traditional strong supporter of the topic of human rights in the administration of justice, Austria welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to identify obstacles to an independent judicial system which could help States in their endeavours to establish a functioning rule of law system. The Special Rapporteur noted that in many countries there was not a sufficient representation of women and ethnic minorities in the judiciary and that temporary special measures could achieve greater representation for them. Austria asked the Special Rapporteur to further elaborate on the issue. He also recommended approving a comprehensive set of principles in order to ensure and further the independence of the judiciary and to use it as a reference to all Member States and particularly those undergoing a period of political transition. How far could already existing best practices in the area of the administration of justice serve as a basis for such a tool?

LIESBETH GOOSSENS (Belgium) thanked the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression for taking over the mandate on the freedom of opinion and expression, which had been extended in 2008 and to which Belgium attached particular importance. It was a key element in each democratic society. Belgium was ready to fully cooperate with the Special Rapporteur in carrying out his mandate. Belgium also attached importance to have each Special Rapporteur carry out his/her mandate in full freedom. Focus on access to information and security and protection of journalists in armed conflict was welcomed. The recommendation made with respect to people affected by poverty was of particular interest to Belgium. Taking into account the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, why did the Special Rapporteur take the position of extreme poverty in deploying the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression? Belgium noted with interest the recommendation made to employ software to help promote and protect the rights of media professionals, and asked him if he had already started to develop this software and what were its components? Further, Belgium asked the Special Rapporteur for more information regarding the consultations he held with media professionals with regard to establishing this software?

SHAZRA ABDUL SATTAR (Maldives) said the final report of the Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers was very helpful, and he should be congratulated for the extraordinary success he had enjoyed during his term. The Maldives had worked closely with the Special Rapporteur, and during this interaction the Special Rapporteur had shown many times his grasp of law and policy and his determination to offer practical advice and help, showing real results on the ground. The Maldives had no doubt that his work would come to be seen as a seminal document for all States wishing to ensure a fully independent judiciary sector. Notwithstanding, the Maldives recognised that there remained room for improvement, and would therefore examine closely the final recommendations, as it had many challenges ahead, for which it welcomed the support of the international community. The Maldives thanked the Special Rapporteur for the important role he had played in the country's democratic transition.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) said that concerning the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges, the domestic situation in Fiji had been of concern to many in the international community, including New Zealand, for some time now. Since New Zealand had brought Fiji to the Council’s attention in June 2008, the political, legal and human rights situation of the people of Fiji had unfortunately deteriorated. Following the Fiji Court of Appeal decision in April, ruling that actions of Fiji’s military in December 2006 were unlawful and unconstitutional, the illegal Fiji interim regime had abrogated the 1997 Constitution; declared a State of Emergency; sacked Fiji’s judiciary; imposed severe restrictions on local and international media; curtailed the freedom of expression and opinion; and arbitrarily detained people. Most recently, the right to issue legal practicing certificates had been taken away from the independent Fiji Law Society and placed directly under the military regime’s control. New Zealand would like to receive an update from the Special Rapporteur concerning his proposed visit to Fiji and his recent exchanges with Fiji’s military regime.

MOHAMED ACHGALOU (Morocco) thanked the three Rapporteurs for presenting their reports. Of particular interest was the report on the right to health. Morocco set out standards that were just as high as those in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. However, Morocco remained concerned about improving the health of its people and ensuring access to health care and medicines. In this regard the Government aimed to make the necessary reforms to address this. Currently medical coverage in the country was at the grassroots level, and as such the Government aimed to strengthen these measures to ensure compulsory health insurance with risk sharing between local organizations and the Government.

Concerning the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Morocco reaffirmed the importance it attached to freedom of expression; however, everyone agreed that this was not an absolute right and should be carried out with respect for the beliefs and rights of others. Morocco was always at the forefront of all international initiatives aimed at protecting and promoting the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Morocco was actively engaged in the Durban Review Conference and directly contributed to the constructive manner with which negotiations were held on the reservations made to the final outcome document. To use tools to distort and spread hate was unacceptable. In response to the proposal made by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Moroccan Minister of Justice announced his intention to host a seminar for the African region to examine the question of freedom of expression and incitement to religious and racial hatred.

CHUN HYE RAN (Republic of Korea) said in recent years there had been a fierce debate on the limitations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the international community. The right had its limits, as provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but the difficulty lay in where to draw the line. In this regard, there was a need for a delicate balance between exercising the freedom of expression and taking responsibility for its consequences. Legal debate, however, was not enough to resolve the issue over the limits to freedom of expression. Education and dialogue should be the key tool to prevent the potential intercultural and inter-religious tensions involving the allegation of abuse of free speech - and the Special Rapporteur's proposal to develop an online training programme for media personnel on freedom of expression, human rights and multiculturalism in this regard was welcomed. With the recent global economic crisis, addressing the concern over the right of access to information in situations of extreme poverty had become an urgent task. Community-based broadcasting as recommended in the report could also be a very significant tool for marginalised persons to exercise their right to freedom of expression and access to information.

KGOMOTSO DAPHNE RAHLAGA, (South Africa), said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this was a mandate of great importance, as it lay at the core of, and facilitated the enjoyment of other human rights. There was concern for the way in which the report was presented, as it was not comprehensive enough, focusing mainly on promotional activities. South Africa believed that the right to freedom of expression and opinion was not an impediment. It was too early for the mandate-holder to pronounce himself on a sensitive issue such as defamation of religions without involving all stakeholders in the issue. South Africa looked forward to future reports and hoped that the faults would be remedied in this regard.

ISMAIL M. BKRI (Malaysia) said at the last regular session of the Council, Malaysia had taken the floor to express concern at the unacceptable actions by certain special procedure mandate holders who had overstepped and violated their established mandates and code of conduct. Yet again, a similar situation appeared to be unfolding with the current mandate holder on the freedom of expression. Malaysia deeply regretted the views and comments expressed by the Special Rapporteur on the sensitive issue of defamation of religions and anti-terrorism and anti-extremism legislation in his report - these comments were not acceptable as they clearly fell outside the purview of his mandate. As an institution which only functioned effectively with the cooperation of States, Malaysia was of the view that by departing from his mandate, the Special Rapporteur would precipitate a certain degree of erosion of belief in the objectivity and neutrality of the special procedure institution. Malaysia hoped that in future the Special Rapporteur would not decide to test the goodwill of States on such a sensitive and delicate issue, and urged him to lay out priorities that were in accordance with the mandate established by the relevant resolution.

JOELLE HIVONNET, of the European Commission, said the European Commission was closely following the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health and looked forward to continuing good cooperation with Mr. Grover. In questions, it was noted that, besides the limitation on local production, there were growing difficulties in bringing essential medicines under patent to generic production, for example, paediatric formulas and second line treatments for HIV/AIDS. Was the option of voluntary patent pooling a potentially effective mechanism to address that bottleneck and would Mr. Grover further study that option? They also wanted to hear Mr. Grover's views on implementing the right to access to a minimum level of basic health care; whether he thought that the IPR provisions in the Free Trade Agreements should reflect the level of development of the trading partners allowing for specific IPR provisions according to the level of needs, development and capacities; and, with regard to the 30 August decision mentioned in his report, whether he thought that developing countries should be encouraged to use the system set up by that decision more intensively as it could help to save lives, and what could be done to encourage other developing countries to use the system?

IMAD ZUHAIRI (Palestine) welcomed the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Anand Grover, and expressed appreciation for the presentation of his report. Intellectual property rights were important for innovation related to public health and were one factor in determining access to medicines. But neither innovation nor access depended on just intellectual property rights. The impact of the economic and political trends on global health was complex. While the relationship between poverty and globalization was beyond the scope of this report, evidence that linked poverty with high disease trouble was undeniable and stood at the centre of this issue that the Council was addressing. Poverty, disease and research capacity all intersected to create an amount of challenges and opportunities for developing countries in particular. In Palestine, the severe and harsh siege against the occupied Gaza Strip imposed a collective punishment against the Palestinian people, caused devastating damages especially on the right to health. It was very difficult if not impossible for the patients to have access to health care outside the occupied Gaza Strip. The Special Rapporteur was asked on the measures he would advocate promoting the free flow of technical advances and the access to care for people whose movements were restricted, whose trade exchanges were prevented, and whose potential of innovation was daily endangered.

KHALID FAHAD AL-HAJRI (Qatar) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Qatar supported the concern expressed therein with regards to violence against media professionals throughout the world, especially in times of armed conflict, and agreed that journalists should in times of conflict be considered civilians. The freedom of the press allowed the voice of the poor to be heard, increasing the awareness of public opinion, the understanding of poverty, and increased measures against poverty and discrimination. The conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that media corporations could have a positive role to play to improve the fight against poverty was supported. There was regret for the content of the report regarding defamation of religions, as the Special Rapporteur did not stick to his mandate in this regard, and had ignored the amendment introduced to his mandate; had not taken up abuses of the right to expression and opinion; and had overstepped his mandate, making severe criticism of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. There was a need to be open and tolerant and abstain from cultural ego-centrism. Qatar had always adopted a balanced approach based on respect for the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion or belief of the other.

RODRIGO DONOSO (Chile) observed that for 17 years there had been no freedom of expression in Chile. That right had been suppressed, along with many other human rights and fundamental freedoms. For that reason, Chile fully agreed with what had been stated by the Rapporteur that the right to freedom of expression in a country was a good indicator of the level of protection and respect for all human rights in the country. Moreover, it was agreed that any limits to the right to freedom of expression should be clearly established by law in accordance with specific rules that conformed with international human rights law, and in particular with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In no way should legal regulations threaten the freedom of expression.

Chile also believed that to guarantee freedom of expression it was necessary to strengthen equality of opportunity for all in all areas. Freedom of expression was also closely related to the right to seek, receive and communicate expression regardless of borders. That task should not only be done by State authorities, which should establish adequate policies in that respect, including due impartiality as well as the protection of the relevant media, but should also be guaranteed to government and non-governmental organizations as well as civil society as a whole. Mr. Grover was encouraged to continue working in a participatory way on that task.

ELIAS KHOURI, of the Union of Arab Jurists, said that the Union of Arab Jurists appreciated the efforts made by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, and supported his proposals to guarantee the independence of judges and lawyers. The international court hearings on Lebanon and Sudan were examples of where the international judicial system was politicized and led to selectivity in the interest of some States. At the local level States had damaged the legal system and its pillars in order to set up a corrupt system. The United States set-up courts in Iraq which were in violation of international instruments. He asked the Special Rapporteur to set out the measures necessary to bring an end to these violations and to give this due attention to give respect to the right to life and article 14 of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights on all persons being equal before the courts and tribunals, and entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

MICHAEL ANTHONY, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said the concerns expressed in the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, in particular the need to create a culture of protection of media workers, including at the legislative, administrative and judicial levels, and for violations to be investigated and prosecuted, challenging impunity and strengthening accountability, and democratic values, were welcomed. The independence of the judiciary was fundamental to the protection of human rights - in many Asian nations, the lack of a functioning and independent judiciary enabled impunity for even the gravest of violations by State agents. There was need for greater scrutiny by the mandate in Bangladesh. The joint statement by ten special procedures concerning the unabated impunity for human rights violations in Sri Lanka was welcomed. The justice delivery mechanisms in the country remained dysfunctional, making a visit by the Special Rapporteur on judges and lawyers an urgent need.

GAIL YVONNE DAVIDSON, of Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, in a joint statement with International Civil Liberties Monitoring, noted that the Special Rapporteur Leandro Despouy had again emphasized the necessity for the Council to recognize the right to independent courts, as set out in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as universal, absolute and non-derogable. And yet States around the world had adopted sweeping extra-legal powers to violate fundamental rights and destroy judicial independence under the aegis of emergency measures arbitrarily imposed for un-reviewed reasons such as the so-called war on terror. Examples of States that had used arbitrarily determined states of emergency to remove universal access to independent courts included Syria – where under emergency measures since 1963 the use of torture was ubiquitous; the United States – where emergency measures declared on 14 September 2001 created a notorious extra-legal regime under which persons were detained and tortured; and Pakistan – where emergency measures were imposed in large part to prevent proper judicial restrictions on state arbitrariness, an imposition millions of people had resoundingly rejected. The Council had now to opt for the rule of law and finally declare non-derogable the right to an independent and impartial court.

LUKAS MACHON, of International Commission of Jurists, in a joint statement with Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juarez, Human Rights Watch, and World Organization against Torture, thanked Mr. Despouy for his report, in which he highlighted the considerable attention given to the subject of military jurisdiction and pointed to the Draft Principles on the Administration of Justice by Military Tribunals which were yet to be adopted by the Council. These principles stated that “in all circumstances, the jurisdiction of military courts should be set aside in favour of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to conduct inquiries into serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and torture, and to prosecute and try persons accused of such crimes”. In the context of Mexico’s Universal Periodic Review in February 2009, seven States recommended that Mexico properly limit the use of military jurisdiction to exclude human rights violations from its sphere of competence. These recommendations were not accepted. In light of the situation in Mexico with regard to the use of military justice, what measures, including a country visit to Mexico, did the Rapporteur consider feasible to address this urgent issue?

TENZIN KAYTA, of Society for Threatened Peoples, said 30 per cent of communications by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers were interventions in Asia, clearly indicating the struggle for the full realisation of administration of justice in the region. The Special Rapporteur noted that the majority of the cases in China concerned the situation of defence lawyers, and the situation of other human rights defenders which often faced judicial and other proceedings which fell short of the fair trial principles. The authorities had publicised the sentencing of Tibetans, but no information was forthcoming on whether they had had a fair trial or not.

SOHA ABDELATY, of Action Canada for Population and Development, in a joint statement, said they were grateful to the Special Rapporteur on the right to health for his incisive report addressing the ways in which intellectual property provisions could negatively impact access to medicines. Their organizations would like to lend their support to the findings and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur and commended him for the work he had done in encouraging States to develop a consistent and predictable policy on public health, trade and intellectual property that was firmly based on and informed by human rights. They also echoed the Special Rapporteur's concern that developing countries, while attempting to implement the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights flexibilities in order to address public health concerns, had experienced pressures from developing countries and multi-national pharmaceutical corporations. They also supported the report's finding that Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Free Trade Agreements had an adverse impact on the prices and availability of medicines and urged States to conduct human rights impact assessment to measure the extent of those effects and identify measures to counter them.

CHRIS SIDOTI, of Human Rights Council of Australia, welcomed the reports of all the Special Rapporteurs. In particular the Human Rights Council of Australia welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and thanked him for the contribution he made ongoing to this mandate. It was ridiculous to expect that a first time report could contain everything under the scope of the mandate. Of concern on the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression was that in paragraph 4D of the resolution, elements of paragraph 4 were ignored which dealt with freedom of expression. Paragraph 4 did not place paragraph 4D of the resolution in the right place. It was important that the work of the Special Rapporteur be based on international law and not on the opinions of a political body such as the Council.

GRAINNE KILCULLEN, of Amnesty International, said in light of the ongoing human rights violations in the North Caucuses and elsewhere in the Russian Federation, Amnesty International attached particular importance to the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur's on independence of judges and lawyers to the Government. Since the start of this year, there had been further developments of significant concern in the Russian Federation, which required continued follow-up by the Special Rapporteur's successor. Among these developments was the killing of human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov on 19 January 2009 - it was important that the investigations and any prosecutions related to this crime were closely monitored, as should be other test cases for the independence of the Russian judicial system. The report and addenda of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression were welcomed, and the Council should welcome them.

LUCIA NADER, of Conectas Direitos Humanos, said that it was important to acknowledge the efforts that some developing countries had made to increase access to medicines for their citizens. This was the case of Brazil where the Constitution established that the right to health must be provided by the State through a universal, equitable and comprehensive system. Moreover, as recommended by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Brazil had recently made use of the flexibility of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights with the compulsory licence of medicine Efavirenz, used in the treatment of people living with HIV/AIDS. This was a necessary means to promote public interest and public health. Other countries in Latin America were also considering making use of this flexibility and the organization urged them to do so. However, these efforts fell short of meeting the massive needs of the developing world population. The international community could not ignore the fact that intellectual property rights were a huge obstacle to access to medicines, due to the impeditive prices practices by the pharmaceutical industry.

JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, welcomed the findings and recommendations in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including that limitations to the right to freedom of expression had to be narrowly drawn. But as the Special Rapporteur noted in his reports, the way to address cultural and religious differences was not by silencing people, but by debating those issues openly. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network was dismayed that many delegations had sought to remove the Special Rapporteur from office, saying he had failed to fulfil his mandate. It was entirely appropriate for the Special Rapporteur to inform the Council of how best to protect freedom of expression. Indeed, in the Council itself they were witnessing an assault against that freedom. All too often space for addressing country situations was being eroded. Rights of reply were being used for technical questions to prevent delegates from speaking. Last week they had seen the use of a no-action motion to prevent the discussion of an amendment. The Special Rapporteur was urged to continue to exercise his mandate independently, free from threats or external pressure. And the Council was urged to restore freedom of expression as a core value, never again using a no-action motion to stifle debate.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of Association for World Citizens, said there were major problems with the way medicines were developed, marketed, prescribed and consumed across the world. Underlying factors deserved particular attention. The predominance of profit-seeking actors and the failure of public institutions to correct market failures and protect public goods all caused further problems. Taking into account tax credits, the public sector provided 60 per cent of the founding for global health research and development - and yet the pharmaceutical priorities were largely shaped by the granting of patents to private corporations. The industry was under pressure to maintain high returns, and tropical diseases were neglected whilst lifestyle medications were given priority. Neglected diseases affected resource-poor locations, from which patents could extract little revenue. The new Special Rapporteur should continue his efforts and his follow-up of this issue.

GEORGE GORDON LENNOX, of Reporters without Borders - International, in a joint statement, thanked Frank La Rue for his report which was like a glimmer of light through a murky smokescreen of cover-ups of human rights violations all over the world by this Council, most recently regarding Sri Lanka. The organizations noted with pleasure that the Special Rapporteur intended to give priority to the protection of journalists in armed conflicts. Should this not also be extended to the freedom of access of reporters to war zones? In Sri Lanka, for example, local and international media reporters were either prevented from covering the conflict and its aftermath or killed when they said too much. The fighting was over, but the repression against journalists continued: on Monday, a gang of thugs kidnapped Poddala Jayavantha, the Secretary-General of the Sri Lanka Working Journalist Association. In Pakistan, as a result of military action in the Swat valley, all major local reporters and editors had been obliged to flee. As a result there were no local media and the population was deprived of information apart from that provided by reporters accompanying the army.


Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteurs

LEANDRO DESPOUY, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in concluding remarks, with regard to his missions, thought it was important as far as Guatemala was concerned that they had initiated a course of intense cooperation and he hoped the Special Rapporteur mandate would have a follow-up visit to that country as had been done in others, where they had managed to set up a Supreme Court. Guatemala was grappling with enormous challenges, including chronic historical impunity, to which new factors such as drug trafficking and organized crime had been added. The legal system had to carry out a major role in addressing those. With respect to the Russian Federation, they had established great cooperation on sensitive issues and he hoped that his successor would be able to visit some of the regions indicated by non-governmental organizations, such as in the north caucuses region. The conditions existed for continuity in the mandate there. He laid out his activities with regard to individual cases of lawyers and defenders detained in the Russian Federation, and updated the Council on their status, noting that an inquiry was now ongoing in one case by the Prosecutor General.

Addressing salient questions put by delegations, Mr. Despouy noted that the European Union had stressed the need for more invitations to visit States. The mandate had indeed received a number of invitations and he was not able to undertake all the visits, given the restrictions of the mandate, which meant that only a couple of visits a year could be accomplished. In contrast, in some cases he had requested visits and had not received invitations. He therefore encouraged more States to extend invitations because they were most helpful. Regarding the Cubans detained in the United States, it was necessary to ensure in future that there was a trial with an impartial court and he hoped that would be the case. He was very deeply alarmed with the situation in Fiji and he agreed with the comments made. If that country did not accept a visit they would have to think of the possibility of a special session. There were other countries in the region, such as the Maldives, with which the United Nations had established very constructive relations.

In some final comments on the mandate, Mr. Despouy noted that it was very important for the Council to adopt the draft principles on military justice. He further stressed the importance of United Nations archives in establishing international principles and norms. In farewell, he thanked all – States, non-governmental organizations and others – for their cooperation in fulfilling his mandate.

FRANCK LA RUE LEWY, Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said he was satisfied with the very many interventions in the meeting, which showed what a far-reaching forum the Council was for human rights. He hoped that when he came to the end of his mandate he would be in the same position of Mr. Despouy, who had received much well-deserved praise for his efforts. Mr. La Rue thanked the Maldives and Honduras for their comments, noting that best practices had been discussed and shared. These were countries that were interested in the United Nations system of special procedures, and he would continue to work with them and encourage any measures that would foster the right to freedom of opinion and expression for their citizens. The meeting with the Organization of the Islamic Conference had also been a great privilege, and this was a good start to an ongoing dialogue. No Special Rapporteur could choose part of their mandate - it was taken on board holistically as a whole, as were the international instruments behind it.

Mr. La Rue said he would not depart from his mandate, nor from the international instruments behind it, rather he would stick to them closely. The right should be interpreted in a complete way, regarding the implementation of all human rights, as the right to freedom of expression was fundamental to the enjoyment of all other rights. He also intended to go into the limits of the right. Limitations were important, and should be established and clarified with all regional groups, but limitations on the exercise of a right should be an exception rather than a rule, and this was why his report sought to bring out the positive side of the right to freedom of expression, clarifying that limitations were sometimes necessary and timely. The task was clearly determined. All regions and entities should hold dialogues on this issue, such as what "incitement to hatred" actually meant.

The use of criminal legislation should be in harmony with human rights terms, as criminal legislation could distort and depart from the ambit of all human rights, with constraints possibly placed upon their enjoyment, something which the Council and its mechanisms sought to prevent. The world had tragically experienced many conflicts, and access had been denied to journalists in areas of conflict, along with the tragic loss of some of their lives, and there should be protection of journalists in these zones - all media workers should have protection in all areas at all times. Protection of the press should not just mean physical protection, but also of their access to information. With regards to the issue of poverty, he had never wished to give the impression that poor countries were at a disadvantage and had fewer rights, quite the contrary. Poverty applied to all countries, as all had pockets of poverty. Access to electronic communication was also essential, and there should be a concerted effort throughout the world to guarantee to all people access to communication so that they could exercise their political right as active citizens.

ANAND GROVER, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, said that most comments needed a written response, for example comments on the role of non-state actors on the access to health in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Regarding the general comment by the United States and Switzerland, who said that his recommendations tried to weaken the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, he wanted to clarify that and said that his recommendations were within the flexibility of this agreement. Incremental innovation was actually favoured by the system in place in the United States and enormous profits were made through small changes that would then be patented again. Mr. Grover said that this should not be possible. On maternal mortality, he said that he would take up the issue and continue working on it. He hoped that the Human Rights Council would address the issue by the way of a resolution in the future. Mr. Grover also agreed that free-trade agreements should be modulated and tailored to developing countries’ needs. Free-trade agreements should not undermine the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. As for water and sanitation, Mr. Grover said that this would be an issue for the future and was a sine qua non for the access to health.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record