SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON RIGHTS TO HEALTH AND EDUCATION PRESENT FINDINGS TO COMMISSION

Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON

30 March 2004


Call for Greater Attention to Sexual and Reproductive Health,
End to Fees for Primary Education


Special Rapporteurs on the rights to education and health spoke before the Commission on Human Rights this afternoon, saying respectively that countries should not shrink from confronting sensitive issues of sexual and reproductive health and that all nations should provide free public primary school education.

Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said his report to the Commission this year had three main themes: neglected diseases, poverty, and sexual and reproductive health. The rights to sexual and reproductive health had an indispensable role to play in the struggle against poverty, HIV/AIDS, gender inequality and intolerance, Mr. Hunt contended – they were among the most sensitive and controversial in international human rights law, but they were also among the most important.

Representatives of the United States, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia took issue with Mr. Hunt’s focus on sexual orientation as it related to health, saying the topic appeared to fall beyond his mandate. Canada expressed support for Mr. Hunt’s engagement with the subject.

Mr. Hunt responded by saying that it was important that his mandate be relevant, and one of the abiding concerns in the international community at the moment was the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, which involved meeting targets on preventing HIV/AIDS and maternal and infant mortality, all of which were intimately linked to sexual and reproductive health.

Katarina Tomasevski, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said not even half the Governments of the world ensured free primary education. The lack of this basic necessity was due to the higher importance placed by countries upon military and defense spending, she contended. Ms. Tomasevski also said it was a concern that Commission resolutions on the right to education repeatedly failed to mention human rights. She said she would not seek renewal of her mandate.

Representatives of China and Colombia took issue with the Special Rapporteur’s findings following visits to their countries. Ms. Tomasevski defended her conclusions.

The Commission also continued general debate this afternoon on economic, social and cultural rights. Among the subjects raised were the challenges posed by globalization and uneven levels of economic development; strategies for realizing the right to food; and proposals for linking international trading regimes with human right standards.

Contributing statements were representatives of Iran, UN-Habitat, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, Angola, Switzerland, Madagascar, Senegal, the International Labour Office, Poland, Viet Nam, and Colombia.

The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also spoke: National Union of Jurists of Cuba speaking on behalf of Centro de Estudios Europeos; Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la Soberanía de los Pueblos; Dominicans for Justice and Peace, speaking on behalf of Pax Christi International; Dominican Leadership Conference; Human Rights Advocates, speaking on behalf of Earthjustice; International Educational Development; Union of Arab Jurists speaking on behalf of General Arab Women Federation; World Organization against Torture; Franciscans International; International Commission of Jurists; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements; Europe-Third World Centre; Transnational Radical Party; American Association of Jurists; and International Federation of University Women, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1

The Commission will reconvene at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 31 March for an extended meeting that will run without pause through 3 p.m. A closed meeting will be held from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. to continue the Commission’s consideration of agenda item 9 (b) on its 1503 procedure under which it considers the situation of human rights in a number of countries behind closed doors.

Documents on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Before the Commission under this agenda item is a report by Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (E/CN.4/2004/49 and Add.1 and Add.2). In section 1, the Special Rapporteur contributes to the tenth anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development by considering sexual and reproductive health through the prism of the right to health. At least three of the eight Millennium Development Goals were directly related to sexual and reproductive health, he states; he takes the view that the rights to sexual and reproductive health have an indispensable role to play in the struggle against intolerance, gender inequality, HIV/AIDS and poverty, and he recommends that increased attention be devoted to a proper understanding of reproductive health, reproductive rights, sexual health and sexual rights.

In section II, the Special Rapporteur explores the relationship between the right to health and poverty reduction. While Niger’s Poverty Reduction Strategy is used as a case study, much of the analysis applies equally to other poverty reduction strategies, he notes. He argues that the right to health can reinforce and enhance poverty reduction strategies. Section III provides a brief update on the Special Rapporteur’s work regarding neglected diseases and the 10/90 “gap”. In accordance with Commission resolution 2003/28, section IV provides some short remarks on the right to health and violence prevention.

The first addendum to the report contains information on a mission to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The document seeks to provide an accessible introduction to a few of the technical issues that lie at the intersection of trade and the right to health. The introduction describes some of the fundamental features of the Special Rapporteur’s approach, such as the principle of policy coherence. It also explains that the Special Rapporteur’s primary focus is on WTO Member States rather than the WTO itself.

Section I outlines the sources and scope of the right to health in the context of trade. Section II introduces a selection of specific trade agreements and issues in relation to the right to health; intellectual property (the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and neglected diseases); trade in services and the General Agreement on Trade in Services; impact assessments; gender and trade; technical assistance; the Trade Policy Review Mechanism; and lists acceding countries. Section III provides recommendations from a range of actors.

The second Addendum contains a Note by the Secretariat on a mission of the Special Rapporteur to Mozambique. The report could not be prepared and shared with the Government prior to the deadline for the submission of reports to the Commission on Human Rights during its sixtieth session.

There was also a report of Katarina Tomasevski, Special Rapporteur on the right to education (E/CN.4/2004/45 and Add.1 and Add.2), which will be her last report to the Commission. The document notes that fulfilling her mandate – enhancing the visibility of the right to education and eliminating obstacles and difficulties in its realization – has proved impossible given yearly increasing obstacles. Her formal complaint against the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 15 October 2003, not yet resolved, dealt with her efforts to enhance the visibility of the right to education. Her recommendation is not to renew the mandate, she contends. The present report deals with three substantive areas: financial obstacles to the realization of the right to education; elimination of gender discrimination both in and through education; and the content of education. The key message of the report is the urgent need for a substantive human rights contribution by United Nations actors that bears “human rights” in its name.

The first Addendum to the report concerns a mission to China. The report notes that Chinese law does not yet conform to the international legal framework defining the right to education; the country’s Constitution defines education as an individual duty. Freedom to impart education is not recognized, nor is teachers’ freedom of association. And religious education remains prohibited. The Special Rapporteur therefore recommends that Chinese law be reviewed using the yardstick of its international human rights obligations so that human and minority rights can be integrated into education policy, law and practice. Moreover, the private cost of public education in China precludes access to school and is the most important reason for non-attendance and school abandonment, Ms. Tomsevski contends. Schoolchildren perform manual work at school and the immediate prohibition and elimination of this practice is recommended as well. The Government should affirm, formally and explicitly, that all children have the right to free education and should invite all school-age children to enroll. Among other recommendations, Ms. Tomasevski suggests that China’s strong emphasis on ideology in education should be reviewed.

A second Addendum to the report concerns a mission to Colombia which the Special Rapporteur undertook from 1 to 10 October 2003. Ms. Tomsevski recommends that Colombia confirm, immediately and explicitly, that its international human rights obligations are fully observed. Free compulsory education is a case in point. An increase of 30 per cent in budgetary spending on education – from 4 to 6 per cent of GDP – is recommended, as well as the drawing up of an up-to-date profile of educational exclusion to enable the Government to bring about full inclusion as soon as possible. Among other recommendations, Ms. Tomasevski calls for a clear separation between schools and the conflict in Colombia; schools should be identified as “zones of peace.” And as the right to education cannot be imagined without the protection of the human, professional, trade union and academic rights of teachers, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government take immediate measures to remedy its failure to offer such protection.

Statement of Special Rapporteur on Right to Health

. PAUL HUNT, Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, presenting his report (E/CN.4/2004/49 and Add.1 and Add.2), said his preliminary report, presented last April, outlined his three main objectives: to promote the human right to health; to clarify the legal scope of the right to health; and to identify good practices for the operationalization of the right to health at the national and international levels. He aimed to address these three objectives by focusing on the twin issues of poverty and discrimination. He endorsed a court-based approach to health, as well as a policy-based approach. Policies that were based on human rights norms, including the right to health, were more likely to be effective, equitable, inclusive and meaningful to those living in poverty. The policy-based approach represented a great challenge; it demanded the development of new techniques and new skills.

This year’s report had three main themes: neglected diseases, poverty, and sexual and reproductive health. The Special Rapporteur said he had come to the conclusion that a right to health approach did not imply a radically new approach to poverty reduction, and he had come to this conclusion after looking at the Poverty Reduction Strategy of Niger. Rather, a right to health approach reinforced and enhanced elements that already existed in many anti-poverty strategies. The rights to sexual and reproductive health had an indispensable role to play in the struggle against poverty, HIV/AIDS, gender equality and intolerance. The issues of sexual and reproductive health were among the most sensitive and controversial in international human rights law, but they were also among the most important.

The Special Rapporteur said he had visited Mozambique during his mandate, and would present his report on this mission at the next session. He also had visited the World Trade Organization (WTO), with the aim of enhancing the dialogue between trade and human rights specialists by focusing on aspects of the relationship between trade and the right to health. Trade impacted on the right to health in numerous ways. However, the effect depended upon the trade rules chosen. The great challenge was how to implement consistently human rights and trade treaties. This challenge could only be addressed through rigorous and well-informed dialogue. The right to health and other human rights could help to ensure that trade rules and policies were fair to all. Consideration of the right could help to establish an inclusive, balanced, and equitable trading system benefiting all, including those living in poverty.

Interactive Dialogue on Right to Health

ALEXANDRE DA CONCEIÇAO ZANDAMELA (Mozambique), speaking as a concerned country, said Mozambique attached great importance to the rights to health and education. The fight against HIV/AIDS and for literacy had been among the priorities of the Government, and it would continue to implement measures in those directions. The Government thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to health for his visit to Mozambique, and looked forward to the report of this mission which would be presented to the Commission during its next session.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said the United States had not supported the creation of the position of this Special Rapporteur due to the lack of clarity in the mandate. This was reflected in a lack of concentration on the health and human rights issues that affected those most in need in the report. The United States asked on what the Special Rapporteur intended to focus over the next 12 months, and how he saw his work progressing on these subjects over the next year. What was his rationale for the assumption that the right to health was not a goal but a vested assumption? The Special Rapporteur’s report appeared to promote and support abortion, which the United States did not support or promote, in particular as a method of family planning. To what extent did the Special Rapporteur intend to focus on abortion and sexual health in the future? Most troubling, however, was the apparent confusion over what constituted international human rights law. The Special Rapporteur appeared to believe that international human rights and humanitarian guidelines were international human rights law, which they were not. Further, the United States did not agree with the Special Rapporteur’s treatment of the issue of sexual orientation.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said Pakistan had supported the appointment of this Special Rapporteur, but in regard to this report, Pakistan wished to express its support of the views expressed by the United States. The report contained materials that were entirely unjustified – for example, that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was not permissible under international human rights law. The Special Rapporteur was requested to cite one specific international human rights treaty that discussed sexual orientation. The Special Rapporteur was requested to explain how he justified raising such a controversial issue that fell outside his mandate.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Special Rapporteur had indicated in his report that health services should be acceptable to indigenous groups; what difficulties had he encountered in his findings in this area with regard to reproductive health?

HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada) said Canada welcomed the emphasis placed on the important linkage between sexual and reproductive health and the right to health. How would this issue be moved forward in the coming year? The comments on sexual orientation by Pakistan were not the view of Canada. Canada also wished to know more about potential violations of the right to health in various circumstances, including in the case of somebody placed on a waiting list for treatment.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said Switzerland wished to thank the Special Rapporteur for his statement and ask what the possible impact of the development of an additional protocol on the right to health might be. It also would be useful if there was a clarification of the objectives, purpose, scope, ways and means and criteria for the Special Rapporteur’s proposal for a dialogue on the right to health with private health institutions. Finally, Switzerland expressed support for the position of the Special Rapporteur on the need to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when it came to health.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) said Egypt fully supported the comments made by the Representative of Pakistan on reproductive health. Egypt wondered if the mandate of the Special Rapporteur allowed him to interpret the provisions of existing international human rights instruments. This step was not acceptable to the Egyptian delegation.

TURKI AL MADI (Saudi Arabia) said the efforts made by the Special Rapporteur were appreciated. In the past, Saudi Arabia had supported this mandate and had voted in favour of the resulting resolutions. With regard to the current report, surprise was felt at the manner in which it had been prepared. Saudi Arabia believed that the Rapporteur had gone beyond his mandate by using terminology and expressions that were refused by a large part of the international community. There was no consensus on this terminology. It had been expected that the Rapporteur would focus on his mandate and not on the use of disputed terminology. It was hoped that the Special Rapporteur would appreciate the concerns of Saudi Arabia, as expressed by Pakistan and Egypt.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba also saw imbalances in the Special Rapporteur’s report. It might have been desirable to place greater emphasis on a series of health issues of primordial importance to developing countries, such as the impact of malaria and the problem of access to medication. Cuba also would like to see a discussion in a future report of the pernicious effects on health of unilateral coercive measures.

LI XIAOMEI (China) said the Chinese delegation appreciated the work of the Special Rapporteur and particularly his emphasis on areas of poverty eradication in relation to the right of health. China hoped the Special Rapporteur would focus more on the right to health, taking into consideration the guidelines of the World Health Organization.

PAUL HUNT, Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, responding to the questions, said it was not possible to answer them all in a limited time, but he was more than willing to engage in bilateral discussions with interlocutors and others. A general point was that it was important that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health be relevant, and one of the abiding concerns in the international community at the moment was the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, which involved meeting targets on preventing HIV/AIDS and maternal and infant mortality, all of which were intimately linked to sexual and reproductive health. His mandate should be relevant to the struggle against poverty, and this was another reason for choosing the topic of sexual and reproductive health. He had considered it incumbent upon himself to try and elucidate the scope of these two rights, within the context of the right to health.

These were controversial issues, as Egypt and Pakistan and others had said, and they had been approached from the optic of international law, all of which had been examined, including general treaty law; relevant judicial decisions on the international, national and regional levels; and the statements of Governments, including those of the United States. He appreciated that these were not binding, but he also had examined the legal decisions of treaty bodies. Again Mr. Hunt said, he understood that these matters were sensitive and controversial.

With regard to the question of Switzerland as to how dialogue could be enhanced between the trade and the humanitarian communities at the international level, one way forward was to adopt the recommendation of the World Trade Organization, which was to hold a seminar or conference on the topic of the relationship between trade and gender. One way of encouraging the dialogue at the national level was to encourage policy coherence between Ministries of Health and Trade. In his future work, one issue he hoped to look at was the place that the right to health could play in the realization of the Millennium Development Goals.

Statement of Special Rapporteur on Right to Education

KATARINA TOMASEVSKI, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, said “obstacles and difficulties” had been the keywords of her mandate – she had encountered them throughout, as exemplified by the fact that she had spent all weekend re-translating into English her mission report on Colombia, as the original translation did not adequately reflect her conclusions. She also said she would not be recommending the renewal of her mandate to the Commission. The absence of a mention of human rights in the Commission’s resolutions on the right to education had been repeatedly noted. The first prerequisite to the mandate should have been political support for a human rights mandate in education, since the Commission’s work was concerned with human rights, not education. The Special Rapporteur’s formal complaint, which had been lodged with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, had not yet been resolved, and she would not dwell upon it, but she would provide details upon request.

The end of the Cold War had created conditions for revisiting erroneous concepts that had proliferated during the Cold War on the right to education, Ms. Tomasevski said. When education was defined as Government-controlled instruction imposed upon the young, it had the power to blatantly violate human rights. Compulsory education bestowed upon Governments the power to force all children into schools where they could be indoctrinated and abused unless human rights safeguards were in place. She also wished to reiterate that the Commission should listen to its Special Rapporteurs, as they could provide advance warning of and the chance to prevent human rights violations.

The primary fact to note in respect of her mandate was that not even primary education was free, she said; not even half the Governments of the world ensured free primary education. Education had also become a traded service, which made revisiting the definition of right to education necessary. Moreover, the lack of free primary education was due to the higher importance placed by countries upon military and defense spending. She also wished to raise two other issues, the first of which was the lack of protection of teachers’ rights. To her astonishment, teachers’ trade unions were not recognized, while in Colombia an average of three teachers were killed per month, thereby putting the profession in real danger. The second issue concerned gender, especially as marriage and reproduction were overwhelmingly considered the primary role of women.

Interactive dialogue on Right to Education

LIU ZHONGXIN (China), speaking as a concerned country, said China continued to collaborate with the United Nations mechanisms; and that was why it had invited the Special Rapporteur on the right to education to China. During her mission, the Government had provided her with all the information she required and she had visited places of interest. She was provided with a large amount of first-hand information upon request. However, in her report, the Special Rapporteur did not reflect the true picture of what she had visited and heard. She made groundless comments and accusations on the efforts of the Chinese Government to ensure and realize the right to education. One had to believe that she might have drafted her report even before setting foot on Chinese soil.

Much of the report, which was supposed to be on the state of China's education, was on totally irrelevant issues such as foreign affairs and the military. The Rapporteur had used some groundless reports to make lopsided and irresponsible assessments of the state of education in places she had never visited. Her reason for doing that was puzzling. At the end of her visit, the Rapporteur had claimed that the state of education in countries like Uganda was better than in China. How and why was Uganda chosen as the floor of criteria? China and Uganda were developing countries, and they enjoyed friendly bilateral relations. China was dissatisfied with such degrading criticisms of developing countries by a Special Rapporteur.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Columbia), speaking as a concerned country, said the Government had issued a permanent invitation to visits from Commission mechanisms and had received four Special Rapporteurs over the last few years in a spirit of transparency and cooperation. Colombia believed that in this particular case the report did not show an integrated or balanced view of the situation of education in the country. For example, it said that Colombia was the only country in the region without free access to education, and this was untrue, as there were others in the region. Colombia was the only country that had reported information in this respect, and there were in fact no governmental charges for schools, but there were charges imposed by parental organizations.

None of Colombia’s efforts to include pluralism and diversity in education was mentioned in the Special Rapporteur’s report. The teaching profession had been threatened, and the Government was alarmed by this and had offered special protection measures to hundreds of teachers. Levels of violence had tended to be reduced, and the trend towards violence against teachers was on the way down. There was a need to universalize the right to education and the role of the State, but parents also had the right to choose private education for their children, and it would be wrong, in the context of a developing country, to forbid those who could pay from paying. One of the commitments made by the President of Colombia was to create a revolution in education, and much work was being done in this context.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) congratulated the Special Rapporteur on her intellectual and professional integrity in some sections of her reports, and especially in the first section of her presentation, and asked her to elaborate upon the obstacles and difficulties she had encountered. The fact that her complaint had not been addressed led one to conclude that economic, social and cultural rights were not receiving the respect they deserved. That was a conclusion he would like to see disabused. However, in regard to the report on China, Pakistan wished to point out that the country had educated more than 100 million people in recent years. Had the Special Rapporteur not found anything positive in her visit to China? Or was the point of her visits only to highlight negative things?

JULIE ANDERSON (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked the Special Rapporteur to cite examples from other areas of human rights that could contribute to the need for dialogue between economists and human rights advocates on the right to education as advocated by the Special Rapporteur. With regard to the issue of the adaptability of education and subsequent employment, could she please expand on the idea of how human rights provided a “ready-made framework” for assessing what learners could do with their educations?

CLAUDIA PEREZ ALVAREZ (Cuba) thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report on the right to education in general. Cuba wished to know if the Special Rapporteur had had the possibility of considering mass literacy campaigns, such as that carried out by Venezuela? With regard to child pregnancy, what future programme would be effective for enabling pregnant teenagers to continue their education?

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur that her mandate be not renewed due to the significant obstacles posed to her was very surprising. What were the reasons for this suggestion? Switzerland would be supportive of a renewal of the mandate for various reasons, including that the survey on primary education had shown that such education was not free in 91 countries. This in itself would justify the renewal of the mandate, although it was understood that the obstacles and barriers to the fulfilment of the mandate should be reduced.

TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey) said with regard to six letters sent by the Special Rapporteur to Turkey, and to which she said she had received no replies, Turkey wished to ask whether she in fact had received certain letters from the Turkish Government. With regard to school fees in public and private education, it was noted that Turkey was included in the list, whereas primary education was free in the country except for in schools of a private nature. Turkey wished to know the source of the Special Rapporteur’s information on this matter.

MOHAMED YAHYA OULD SIDI HAIBA (Mauritania) thanked the Special Rapporteur for the quality of her work, which would certainly encourage progress in education. However, in Mauritania, school fees were not imposed for primary public education, although private education did involve fees.

KATARINA TOMASEVSKI, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, responding to the debate, said the Representative of China had referred to “an irresponsible assessment on Tibet”. She did not agree at all with that statement, and the fact that she had not physically visited the region did not mean she could not discuss the horrendous rates of illiteracy there. Moreover, on the Chinese delegate’s reference to Uganda, she had certainly not included any reference to Uganda in her report on China. However, she wished to reiterate her public support of the decision by the Government of Uganda to make access to primary education completely free.

On the issue of the cost of education and payment for education, she said she had always taken seriously that her United Nations badge said “expert”. She drew up her observations and made her recommendations on that basis, so when she had offered observations on whether or not education was free, it was on the basis of extensive investigation. However, she would love to see that the statements offered by delegates that education in their countries was free could be backed up by documentation showing the situation was not so grave. On the other hand, she could not retract her conclusions on the basis on delegations’ statements.

On the issue of dialogue between economists and human rights advocates, she could point to progress in that the World Bank was now advocating completely free primary education.

Her complaint to the Office of the High Commissioner, Ms. Tomasevski explained, was based upon the circumstances surrounding the halting of a press conference she had planned to raise awareness on the scope of her mandate and the improper deployment of resources.

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that since this was the last time the Special Rapporteur on the right to education would address the Commission in her capacity as Rapporteur, he wished to pay tribute to the work she had accomplished since her appointment six years ago. She had been among the pioneers of the work of the Commission. The Office of the High Commissioner attached great importance to the work of mandate holders in the field of economic, social and cultural rights.

General Statements on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

SEYED MOHSEN EMADI (Iran) said the Millennium Development Goals on the eradication of poverty were far from being achieved. The current process of globalization which had increased poverty, underdevelopment and the marginalization of the poorest countries in the world should be redirected so that the entire human family could enjoy its benefits. A global strategy aimed at integrating the development dimension into global processes, coherence between national policies and international commitments and a conducive enabling environment at the international level would ensure that globalization became fully inclusive and equitable.

In the absence of a framework based on the fundamental principles of realizing all human rights, globalization would continue to be a serious challenge. Its benefits could be maximized through international cooperation to increase equal opportunities for trade, economic growth and overall sustainable development. Globalization could be made fully inclusive and equitable only through wide-reaching and sustained efforts to create a shared future based on common humanity.

SELMAN ERGUDEN, of UN-Habitat, said about one-third of the world’s urban population consisted of slum-dwellers. Such figures reflected the levels of urban poverty in developing regions. It was in this context particularly vital that human settlements and housing development efforts should work in parallel with poverty-alleviation strategies. Human beings and a rights-based approach should be the centrepiece of policy formation and implementation.

Guided by the Habitat Agenda, the Millennium Development Goals and the human rights framework and instruments, UN-Habitat was increasingly orienting its policies and activities in this direction, and diverse programmes addressed issues of improving inclusiveness in cities and spreading the understanding that the right to adequate housing contributed to many other aspects of realizing human rights.

SARAH GALBRAITH, of the World Health Organization (WHO), said the potential of human rights to contribute to the practice of public health and to the achievement of more equitable health outcomes was increasingly understood and recognized by policy-makers and practitioners. Human rights work was a cross-cutting activity at WHO, and all parts of the organization were paying increased attention to human rights.

The ultimate goal was universal access to health for all, but of course the attainment of the right to health could not be achieved overnight. All nations faced constraints, in many cases posed by limited resources. But this was not an excuse for inaction; the right to health meant that Governments had an immediate obligation to take concrete, deliberate and targeted steps towards realization of the right to health. The interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights prompted the need for more attention to civil and political rights but also, and increasingly so, to economic, social and cultural rights, especially the right to health. This should be a priority for the international community.

JOSEPH K. INGRAM, of the World Bank, said the reports delivered by the Special Rapporteurs had generally been well balanced and consistent with Bank positions, notably with respect to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative and the suggestion that more attention be given to integrating human rights considerations into budgetary processes. This was interpreted as meaning both greater civil society participation in budget preparation and better legislative oversight of public spending. The Bank also concurred with the call for greater access for developing countries to all markets, which would strengthen inter-linkages between trade and human rights. However, the report should have emphasized barriers to South-South trade. It would also have benefited from the Bank’s 2004 World Development Report, “Making Services Work for Poor People.”

A process of operationalizing basic human rights was now under way at the World Bank. Though the body of human rights conventions would not be used as the basis for new forms of conditionality, the Bank had accepted the concept of “progressive realization” of economic, social and cultural rights and saw their provision not only as a matter human development but also as a moral imperative. The Bank saw poverty reduction and the achievement of Millennium Development Goals as subsets of the human rights value system. While Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) remained a far from perfect instrument for human development, they offered all clients a way forward in delivering on poverty reduction and human rights in a manner consistent with human rights principles.

JOAQUIM BELO MANGUEIRA (Angola) said all human rights were universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. International human rights instruments should apply even where not invoked by the parties, and thus such norms had an obligatory character and should be respected by all citizens and institutions. The international community, represented by States as a whole, the international and regional organizations and the international financial institutions could play an important role in helping developing countries carry out their duties in this regard.

The commitment to respect and implement these duties, particularly on the part of developing countries, should be spread not only to the States themselves but also to the international community, depending on States’ available resources. It was necessary to find a method for better coordination in this field.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said non-constraining guidelines in favour of the progressive realization of the right to an adequate level of food could be a useful tool to bring the international community to take a further step towards the progressive realization of the right to food by helping States to respect their pertinent international obligations. The process of globalization had reinforced interdependency, and thus these guidelines would also be an opportunity to ensure that all international organizations were encouraged to coordinate their activities and policies in favour of promoting and protecting the right to food.

However, guidelines should also take into account the growing impact of an important number of non-State actors on the situation of human rights. Therefore Switzerland was in favour of an inclusive approach that would include States and other stakeholders. This approach would have a greater impact on the efforts of the international community to realize progressively the right to food.

CLARAH ANDRIANJAKA (Madagascar) said extreme poverty was a grave violation of human rights that had continued to claim numerous victims throughout the world, especially in developing countries and particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the majority of the poorest countries were. Some 1.5 billion people were living in total poverty, hundreds of thousands of children were underfed, and other sad figures gave sad evidence of a dramatic situation. Despite international commitments, progress in reducing the number of poor had been disappointing. The responsibility for eliminating poverty lay with Heads of State, and it was encouraging to note that, despite the grave socio-economic problems with which they were confronted, poor countries had placed reducing poverty at the top of their national priorities and had adopted programmes to fight this scourge.

At the international level, efforts had been made to reduce the marginalization of the poor and to reduce the negative impacts of globalization. However, urgent measures were still needed at the national and international levels to ensure that peace and stability reigned in the world and that international commitments became reality.

PAPA DIOP (Senegal) noted the focus of the report on the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health on the three issues of sexual and reproductive health, poverty and the prevention of violence, in regard to which Senegal was endeavouring to orient its policies and programmes as indicated by relevant international instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The right to health had been well recognized and guaranteed in the country’s Constitution and the Government was working to ensure that it was given concrete expression: the health sector represented 9 per cent of the budget -- nearly the 10 per cent of the national budget recommended by the World Health Organization.

Like many developing countries, Senegal was unable to ensure the right to health on its own; the international community must support its national efforts. The right to health fell within the domain of collective responsibility, especially given the high degree of mobility of people in the modern world. In that context, progress in achieving the right to health would serve to advance the interests of all the world’s people, as attested to by recent outbreaks of SARS and avian flu. Barriers to access to drugs in the context of the fight against HIV/AIDS posed a serious obstacle to the right to health.

MARTIN OELZ, of the International Labour Office (ILO), said the important role of judges in promoting and protecting economic, social and cultural rights at the national level should be recognized. Beyond serving as guardians of the rule of law, judges could act as catalysts for social change, underpinning sustainable progress towards the full enjoyment of human rights. Judges had been at the forefront of establishing the rule of law and, in some countries, had promoted alternative models of justice accessible to the poor and to persons working in the informal economy.

The ILO was carrying out training courses for judges and legal educators and practitioners at its International Training Centre in Turin, Italy, and in the field. These courses focused on such objectives as strengthening knowledge and understanding of the content of ILO instruments; explaining the relevance and potential of international human rights and labour standards and the outcomes of the international supervisory process for the work of national courts and tribunals; raising awareness of the lack of access of many workers to labour justice; promoting discussion of issues of comparative law; providing a forum for judges to interact, exchange information and experiences and establish networks; and raising awareness on cross-cutting issues and trends such as labour relations, gender issues and HIV/AIDS.

JOANNA MACIEJEWSKA (Poland) said Poland attached particular importance to the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, which had the same importance as civil and political rights. The two groups of rights were indivisible and interdependent. However, they were not the same -- each had its own specificity. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights held a privileged place among human rights conventions, and the potential role of its follow-up mechanism could not be overestimated, although it could be made more efficient. One job of the Commission would be to contribute towards perfecting the mechanism.

There were many opinions on this topic, and they all required further study. The political, economic and practical dimensions of the proposed measures required further consideration.

PHAM TRUNG CHINH (Viet Nam) said human beings could not fully enjoy civil and political rights when their basic rights, such as the right to food, the right to housing, and the right to health care were not guaranteed. Due regard and adequate balance should be given to these rights so that all peoples, especially those of developing countries, could enjoy all rights to the fullest possible extent.

The economic benefits of globalization were far from globalized, and to a great extent they were unequally shared. Developing countries continued to be marginalized in the process; the fundamental rights of hundreds of millions of people in these countries remained under constant threat. It was imperative that an enabling environment be created for all countries to participate, and equally share, in the positive benefits, tangible as well as intangible, brought about by the globalization process. To ensure all human beings the full enjoyment of human rights, including their economic, social and cultural rights, was not an easy task. Apart from continued efforts by every Government and people, this required a joint commitment and firm actions in strengthening international partnerships and cooperation.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said the Colombian Government gave high priority to economic, social and cultural rights. It was also working towards energizing society in all aspects of development, including education.

The educational system had been strengthened, with millions of students receiving educational training each year. Their number was growing. Students had been provided with food that would allow them to continue their studies. The Government had also taken measures to upgrade the quality of education.

IVONNA PEREZ GUTIERREZ, of National Union of Jurists of Cuba speaking on behalf of Centro de Estudios Europeos; Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la Soberanía de los Pueblos, said many experts had referred to the need for legal rules to protect human rights, but these could not just be formulated, as they did not guarantee economic, social and cultural rights. It was only by the will of States that such rights could be enjoyed. They could only be enjoyed if no country interfered in the internal affairs of another.

A case in point was Cuba, where the United States had interfered for over 40 years, causing damage to Cuba’s economic and social well-being. The economic blockade by the United States was not only an act of genocide against the Cuban people, but the most gross violation of economic, social and cultural rights of any country. There had never been a legal or ethical justification for the embargo, nor any legal cause for which it was applied. The embargo had so worsened the political climate in the region that it had great relevance for world peace. Sooner rather than later, it would end, because it was an insult and a dishonour which the North American people could not bear much longer. Cuba was the inheritor of one of the greatest political revolutions. And it was an example of dignity, since it had never given in to the disproportionate enemy facing it in the arena of reason and morality.

PHILIPPE LEBLANC, of Dominicans for Justice and Peace, speaking on behalf of Pax Christi International, Dominican Leadership Conference, said the NGOs wished to draw attention to violations of the economic, social and cultural rights of peoples whose lands had been used by other Governments for bombing practice for their military forces. In some cases, the toxic residue of decades of military activity had literally poisoned the air, water, soil, animal and plant life. It had destroyed the economies of people and made development a hopeless endeavour. Those activities also denied the rights to a clean and sustainable environment, to development, and to physical and mental health.

Such was the case in Vieques, Puerto Rico, and in Zambales, Pampanga, Bataan and Tarlac, Philippines. The Commission should place the issue of the toxic legacy of American military activities on its agenda and examine the impacts of these activities on the right to health and to a clean and sustainable environment. The United States was urged to fully and adequately compensate all individual victims; guarantee citizen participation in decisions about the clean-up and future use of Vieques; remove all toxic wastes from the lands and areas of Vieques and the Philippines; and institute programmes of remediation to make these places fit for sustainable development.

JENNIFER NAEGELE, of Human Rights Advocates, speaking on behalf of Earthjustice; International Educational Development, said toxic contamination was an increasingly problematic reality for many poor communities, especially in developing countries. Transnational corporations and industrialized countries exported huge amounts of toxic waste to developing nations every year to save on the cost of disposal. While the Special Rapporteur on toxic transfers had conducted valuable work since being appointed in 1995, much work remained to be done. The Commission was urged to renew the Special Rapporteur’s mandate so that the monitoring of human rights, including the rights to life, health, water, food, housing and work, might continue.

The mandate was also useful for coordination with the Basel Convention, which did not provide mechanisms for monitoring the impact of toxics on human rights. Toxic pollutants impacted on a range of human rights around the world, destroying food sources, contaminating water supplies, forcing residents to abandon toxically contaminated properties and endangering workers.

ELIAS KHOURI, of Union of Arab Jurists speaking on behalf of General Arab Women Federation, said economic, social and cultural rights were not ensured in climates of war, armed conflict, violence, oppression and discrimination. The principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights were therefore important, and there was a need for international cooperation to resolve all problems linked to the interdependence of economic, social and cultural rights and human rights in general. It also was important to solve international conflicts by peaceful methods.

When regarding the situation in the Middle East, one saw many contraventions of the principles of the United Nations, including the occupation of Iraq, which was a violation of all human rights. Occupation per se was violence and led to counter-violence and legitimate resistance. It also led to hotbeds of terrorism. There was a need to end such behaviour even through military intervention. The war in Iraq had violated many rights, including the rights to health, education, safety and life. This also applied to the Israeli occupation, which was perpetrating the worst forms of State terrorism against the Palestinians. There was no use in talking about the implementation of human rights without creating a conducive and stable environment away from all forms of violence. This should be done through international cooperation.

MEGHNA ABRAHAM, of World Organization Against Torture, said violence was fundamentally linked to violations of economic, social and cultural rights, and violence was increasingly being used against protests or attempts by groups and communities to challenge policies and actions that maintained or increased inequalities. There had been cases of such violence in Brazil, Greece and India.

Despite the international community’s firm stance on the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights, civil and political rights continued to be treated separately from economic, social and cultural rights. This separation was reflected by the absence of an individual complaints mechanism for dealing with violations and non-fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights. The mandate of the relevant Working Group should, therefore, be renewed and empowered to negotiate the substantive text of an optional protocol to the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

EMILIO GAVARRETE, of Franciscans International, said the indigenous peoples of Honduras were extremely poor, the country’s infrastructure was nearly non-existent, and malnutrition levels were high. Indigenous peoples were human beings, and the country’s Constitution stated that education was compulsory and free – yet something always needed to be paid.

Indigenous people who did not have the $ 3 needed for course materials were excluded from the educational system. It was recommended that the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty be renewed to enable her carry on her work. The Commission was also urged to work for the development of an international instrument on extreme poverty and human rights that would give the poor legal recourse if a State did not respect its obligations to provide for the extremely poor.

EDWIN BERRY, of the International Commission of Jurists, welcomed the efforts of the Commission towards the realization of economic, social and cultural rights through its discussion of an optional protocol to the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It was clear that State adherence to the Covenant was of considerable importance for protecting and promoting economic, social and cultural rights. It was recognized that, through Covenant ratification, States parties bore responsibility for ensuring that economic, social and cultural rights were both protected and promoted.

A comprehensive international remedial mechanism was needed to address violations of Covenant rights – this was of paramount importance. The drafting of the proposed optional protocol would permit a more thorough understanding and precise definition of economic, social and cultural rights, strengthen the recognition of those rights, and encourage States to adopt legislative policies and measures to comply with the International Covenant’s obligations. It also would provide individuals and groups with access to international remedies when their Covenant rights had been violated.

MICHAEL ELLMAN, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said economic, social and cultural rights were in poor condition in El Salvador and in Congo-Brazzaville. They were also under attack in Western European countries such as France. This showed that new instruments had to be adopted to put an end to impunity in the field of economic, social and cultural rights.

All actors, be they States or private entities, had to be held accountable, remedies had to be provided and victims had to be heard. The Commission had a great role to play in that respect, and it should deepen its work towards the establishment of a common global framework for understanding the responsibilities of business enterprises with regard to human rights.

PIERRE MIOT, of the International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, said the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in its 2003 annual report, had underlined that there was enough food to feed everyone, but that the poor had become ever more numerous and did not have regular access to food. Moreover, after analysing the effect of open agricultural markets on the food security of the weakest States, FAO experts had recommended the adoption of active and efficient agricultural policies within those States, rather than a complete opening by those countries to the whims of the market as a way of feeding the hungry.

It was urgently necessary to develop international solidarity in trade and to defend the principle of food sovereignty as the means of realizing the right to food.

MALIK OZDEN, of Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, said the draft on voluntary measures to support the progressive realization of the right to food being elaborated by an Intergovernmental Working Group of the Food and Agriculture Organization ignored the binding nature of the right to food, which was elsewhere recognized in international instruments. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had also recognized the binding nature of that right.

Was there any need to recall that the prevalence of human rights over international trade had been repeatedly reaffirmed internationally? It would not be possible to ensure the elimination of poverty and hunger if human rights were not privileged above trade issues. The Commission was urged to intervene with the Intergovernmental Working Group to remind it of the binding nature of the right to food.

KOK KSOR, of Transnational Radical Party, said that despite its ratification of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Viet Nam had not implemented any of the provisions contained in that treaty. On the contrary, it was pursuing policies that went against the rights of its people, who, far from being considered as citizens, were forced to live the lives of subjects. The international community was supporting Viet Nam but was not effectively ensuring respect for human rights.

For the last 28 years, the Government of Viet Nam had forced the Degar Montagnard people off their ancestral lands and had condemned them to miserable lives. For the last three years, the Government had continuously carried out repressive paramilitary operations persecuting the Degar people in their ancestral highlands. Their economic, social and cultural rights had deeply worsened as a consequence of the presence in the region of thousands of military officers who had provoked a wave of persecutions. The Commission should urge Viet Nam to open the central highlands to missions of observers.

JOSE GUILLERMO PEREZ BERRIO, of American Association of Jurists, said the Commission had received the draft set of norms on transnational corporations, and this document was dramatically different from the original draft. This was a positive development due mostly to the work done by the American Association of Jurists, Centre Europe – Tiers Monde, and the Working Group. However, the draft still did not sufficiently cover economic and legal versatility.

Perhaps the greatest gap was the absence of a principle of responsibility and solidarity on the part of transnationals in relation to violations of human rights. This was the key to dealing with such issues. There was thus a huge gap, with transnational corporations allowed to enjoy impunity for breaches of human rights. It was hoped that the Commission would fill in this gap by setting up an open-ended working group to further rectify the draft.

CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said progress had been achieved globally on women’s economic, social and cultural rights, although forms of gender inequality persisted in strong ways, notably in terms of indirect discrimination. Many examples of such indirect discrimination were found in the labour market, in employment and working conditions and in macroeconomic policies and practices. Institutional and structural biases tended to favour the traditional division of labour, with men having prime responsibility for providing household income and women cast in the nurturing and care giving role.

Such policies did not take account of the increasingly dual burden borne by women for reproduction and productive roles. It was gratifying to see that Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts had highlighted and underscored the vital importance of mainstreaming gender equality and closing the gaps in women’s economic, social and cultural rights.


* *** *


1 Joint statement on behalf of: International Federation of University Women; International Council of Women; International Association of Gerontology; World Union of Catholic Women’s Organizations; International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples; and Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children.


CORRIGENDUM

In press release HR/CN/04/25 of 29 March, the right of reply by the Representative of Belarus on page 12 should read as follows:

ANDREI MOLCHAN (Belarus) said the delegation of Canada had been deliberately misleading the Commission in claiming that disappearances continued in Belarus. The incidents cited by Canada had occurred four or five years ago. In 1999 and 2000, five incidents took place in Belarus which were presented as “political disappearances”. Two of the five “disappeared” were spotted in Western countries. As for the three other cases, investigations were currently underway. That was why Belarus was puzzled that the theme of disappearances was coming from the lips of a Canadian delegate, representative of the country in which indeed extrajudicial executions and disappearances posed a serious problem. Belarus drew the attention of the United States that in its statement under item 9, Belarus had provided exhaustive information on the activities of the mass media and non-governmental organizations in Belarus. Belarus was one of the only countries of the former Soviet Union where there was inter-faith peace. The situation of human rights in the United States and mass violations of human rights by that country in other countries was well known.