Human Rights Council adopts resolutions on human rights and counter-terrorism, trafficking in persons and world of sports free from racism

AFTERNOON

26 March 2010

Council Concludes Thirteenth Session

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its thirteenth session after adopting three resolutions on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, and on a world of sports free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Furthermore, the Council elected members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee and approved candidates for Special Procedure mandate holders.

The Council elected the following experts as members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee: Mona Zulficar, Alfred Ntunduguru Karokora, Shigeki Sakamoto, Chinsung Chung, Vladimir Kartashkin, Jose Antonio Bengoa Cabello, and Wolfgang Stefan Heinz.

The Council also approved candidates for Special Procedure mandate holders, including Jasminka Dzumhur, for the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Vladimir Tochilovsky for the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and Verene Shepherd for the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent.

Under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, the Council adopted a text on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. In that text, the Council expressed serious concern at the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as of refugee and international humanitarian law, in the context of countering terrorism and called upon States, while countering terrorism, to ensure that any person whose human rights or fundamental freedoms had been violated had access to an effective remedy and that victims received adequate, effective and prompt reparations where appropriate, including by bringing to justice those responsible for such violations.

Under its agenda item on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the Council adopted a text on trafficking in persons, especially women and children. In that text, the Council decided to hold a panel discussion at its fourteenth session to give voice to victims of trafficking in persons, with due consideration for the psychological well-being of the victims involved, with a view to reinforcing the centrality of their human rights and needs, and taking into account their recommendations when devising actions to combat human trafficking.

Under the same agenda item, in a text adopted on a world of sports free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Council strongly encouraged States to organize and finance awareness-raising campaigns for preventing and combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in sport; and also invited host countries, in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Sport for Development and Peace, relevant parts of the United Nations, the International Olympic Committee, the International Federation of Association Football and other relevant international sporting bodies to seize the opportunity offered by major sports events to develop campaigns aimed at sensitizing a wide public on the eradication of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Alex Van Meeuwen, President of the Council, in his concluding remarks, said during this very intensive session, the Council had examined numerous subjects and specific situations relating to human rights. This reflected the concerns and common projects, but also the diversity of opinions and approaches to certain subjects and specific situations. However, Mr. Van Meeuwen was convinced that the Council should continue its discussions in an open manner, so as to transcend its differences through dialogue. Action did not come to an end once the Conference Chamber was left behind - it was important to continue to work together on all the themes and situations relative to human rights. The triple hallmark of action, responsibility, and dialogue must continue to guide the Council in the future. It was the responsibility of the Council, the responsibility of all, to always bear in mind the victims of human rights violations, and the common goal to protect and promote the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere in the world, without distinction.

Speaking this afternoon in introductions of resolutions were Mexico, Brazil, and Nigeria.

Speaking in general comments were Cuba, the Russian Federation, China, the United Kingdom, and South Africa.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote was Pakistan.

Speaking in explanations of vote after the vote were Norway, Cameroon, and Nigeria.

Speaking at the end of the meeting were India, Algeria, Switzerland, Spain on behalf of the European Union, and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. Human Rights Watch in a joint statement and Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples also took the floor.

The fourteenth regular session of the Human Rights Council will be held from 31 May to 18 June 2010.

Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/13/L.20) on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council expresses serious concern at the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as of refugee and international humanitarian law, in the context of countering terrorism; calls upon States, while countering terrorism, to ensure that any person whose human rights or fundamental freedoms have been violated has access to an effective remedy and that victims will receive adequate, effective and prompt reparations where appropriate, including by bringing to justice those responsible for such violations; urges all States to take all necessary steps to ensure that persons deprived of liberty, regardless of the place of arrest or of detention, enjoy the guarantees to which they are entitled under international law, including the review of their detention and other fundamental judicial guarantees; acknowledges the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism (A/HRC/13/37); requests all States to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the performance of the tasks and duties mandated, including by reacting promptly to the urgent appeals and providing the information requested, and to give serious consideration to responding favourably to requests by the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries; regrets that the Special Rapporteur did not submit the compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, and therefore reiterated the requests to the Special Rapporteur to present the compilation to the Council no later than its fifteenth session; requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur to contribute further appropriately to the ongoing discussion regarding the efforts of Member States of the United Nations to assure adequate human rights guarantees to ensure fair and clear procedures, in particular with regard to placing on, reviewing and removing individuals and entities from terrorism-related sanctions lists; welcomes the decision taken by the Security Council in its resolution 1904 (2009) to establish an office of the Ombudsperson, and looks forward to an early appointment as a step to continue enhancing due process guarantees for persons on the consolidated list of the Security Council; invites OHCHR and the relevant special procedures of the Council to engage in a more comprehensive dialogue with the Security Council and its Counter-Terrorism Committee in order to promote a consistent approach to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; and requests the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur to present their reports to the Council at its sixteenth session.

JUAN JOSE IGNACIO GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico), introducing L.20, said the resolution was a very brief and tangible text, promoting a methodology that did not want to repeat previously-adopted paragraphs, but rather improve them, and thus respected the balance already struck on previous resolutions on this issue. It reflected tangible actions to advance on human rights and fundamental freedoms while fighting terrorism. There was a call to States to protect the right to privacy, founded in international law, and guarantee access to justice for those whose rights had been violated. It also urged the High Commissioner and others to strengthen their communication with the Human Rights Council on lists and other elements used in the fight against terrorism. The resolution took note of the establishment of an Ombudsman in the Security Council, and welcomed this as an initiative towards a further step towards guaranteeing transparent procedures. The resolution was an important step towards guaranteeing due process for persons and entities, and regretted the lack of a presentation by the Special Rapporteur on a manual of good practice for intelligence agencies, and reiterated the request that this was something that would be submitted to the Council at its fifteenth session. There should be a dialogue with the Special Rapporteur and all other United Nations bodies to ensure a consistent approach.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in a general comment, paid tribute to the significant efforts made by Mexico on this draft resolution which Cuba believed to be very important. Cuba added its voice to the chorus of support to this resolution but expressed its deepest regret at paragraph 19, with which Cuba could not go along with. That paragraph spoke of “the Office”, not the High Commissioner. What did “the Office” refer to, Cuba asked, also asking whether perhaps P3 and P4 staff were having a dialogue with the Security Council. Cuba believed that there was a substantive problem with this paragraph and entered its reservation. This text was an important text and Mexico had put a lot of effort in this. Cuba would therefore go along with the consensus but wished its sincere reservations to be recorded.

ALEX AKZHIGITOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a general comment, thanked Mexico and others for their flexibility and understanding in reaching consensus on this text.

KE YOUSHENG (China), speaking in a general comment, said China supported the content of the resolution in general, believing that in countering terrorism, human rights should be protected, as this was not contrary, but the two were supplementary. China also had a problem with paragraph 19 of the text. The Human Rights Council and the Security Council were different inter-Governmental organizations, with different functions, and they should not meddle in each other's work. Therefore, China hoped this paragraph would not constitute a precedent for the work of the Council. But, taking into account the great efforts made during the consultations by Mexico, China wished to demonstrate its flexibility, and joined consensus on the matter.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking in an explanation of vote before the vote on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Organization of the Islamic Conference appreciated the efforts made by main-sponsor Mexico. In the spirit of genuine cooperation, the Organization of the Islamic Conference had made a number of important proposals. It attached particular importance to the right to privacy as discussed in paragraph 17 of the text: States must take measures to protect that right. The Organization of the Islamic Conference also attached importance to the fact that Special Procedure mandate holders strictly comply with their mandate and respect their code of conduct. The Organization of the Islamic Conference took note of the non-compliance of a Special Rapporteur mandate which had not compiled best practices, a regret that was also reflected in the resolution.

In a resolution (A/HRC/13/L.25) on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to hold a panel discussion at its fourteenth session to give voice to victims of trafficking in persons, with due consideration for the psychological well-being of the victims involved, with a view to reinforcing the centrality of their human rights and needs, and taking into account their recommendations when devising actions to combat human trafficking; to request the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize the panel, within existing resources, with the participation of the High Commissioner, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, and the victims of trafficking in persons; and to also request the Office of the High Commissioner to encourage the presence of relevant human rights mechanisms and specialized agencies and programmes, as well as civil society and national human rights institutions, in the panel session.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil), introducing the draft resolution on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, expressed Brazil’s sincere gratitude to all countries that had co-sponsored this draft resolution. Brazil also acknowledged the role played by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in that regard, from its inception. The draft aimed at holding a panel during the fourteenth session of the Council, to give members an opportunity to listen to the voices of victims of trafficking in persons and to see how best to take care of their needs. The protection of the human rights of victims should be at the centre of measures to combat and prevent trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Brazil hoped that the panel would further inspire the Council and all relevant stakeholders to enhance efforts to combat trafficking in all parts of the world. In that regard, it suggested that all delegations persuade the Council to approve this draft resolution by consensus.

BEATE STIRO (Norway), speaking in an explanation of vote after the vote on resolution L.20, said Norway attached great importance to the protection and promotion of human rights while countering terrorism, and thanked Mexico for its leadership. The fight against terrorism must be based on the rule of law and fundamental human rights standards as laid down in international humanitarian law. Any perception that these might be laid aside during the fight against terrorism could only undermine them. Norway strongly supported the work carried out by the Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of the fight against terrorism, who worked in a constructive and informative manner, and cooperated extensively with other United Nations mechanisms and mandates. Mexico was thanked for its hard efforts to achieve compromise and a consensus outcome.

Action on Resolution under Agenda Item on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance, Follow-up and Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

In a resolution (A/HRC/13/L.26) on a world of sports free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, adopted without a vote, the Council strongly encourages States to organize and finance awareness-raising campaigns for preventing and combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in sport; invites the President of South Africa, the President of the International Federation of Association Football and the Secretary-General to strengthen and reinforce the visible theme on non-racism in football at the World Cup to be held in South Africa in 2010; and also invites host countries, in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Sport for Development and Peace, relevant parts of the United Nations, the International Olympic Committee, the International Federation of Association Football and other relevant international sporting bodies to seize the opportunity offered by major sports events to develop campaigns aimed at sensitizing a wide public on the eradication of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of African Group in introduction of resolution L.26 on a world of sports free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said incidences of racism happened every day and everywhere, happening more often now and becoming a bigger issue. However, consorted efforts had been made, an outstanding one being the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in 2001. In spite of this, racism in sport remained a problem manifest around world, leading to many adverse incidences, as reported in the media. In today’s world, the unifying power of sport could not be underestimated and sport had not failed to show its influence as a uniting banner. Draft resolution L. 26 underlined the need to check racial incidences, combat impunity, and take measures against racism in the field of sport, among others.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil), also introducing the resolution, said this initiative was initiated by a common understanding of sport to contribute to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Recent regrettable incidences called for urgent and bold action by the international community to firmly combat racism and racial discrimination, which were incompatible with sport. Acts of racial discrimination called on States to take all necessary measures to guarantee a world of sport free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The draft resolution, among others, invited host countries of mega events to raise awareness of incompatibility of acts of racial intolerance with the practice of sports.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking in a general comment, thanked Brazil and South Africa for this excellent initiative. The United Kingdom was delighted to co-sponsor it. It had recognized that racial discrimination had to be tackled across the board. Major international sporting events provided a highly influential platform to demonstrate the importance of combating racism. Internationally the United Kingdom’s Kick it Out initiative played a leading role in Europe. Furthermore, the European Commission, the British Council and the Council of Europe had cited it as a good practice initiative. It also worked to ensure that ethnic diversity was recognized and celebrated. In co-sponsoring this resolution the United Kingdom wished to demonstrate its commitment to tackling racism and hoped that all countries would work together to bring racism to an end.

LUVUYO NDIMENI (South Africa), speaking in a general comment, said the issue of racism in sport was close to the hearts of the majority of South Africans, as sport was the exclusive preserve of the white minority during apartheid. During that time, South Africans were deeply encouraged by the protests around the world against organising sport on the basis of skin colour. It was a concerted effort by some Member States of the United Nations to eliminate the practice of racism in sport which led to the adoption by the General Assembly in 1985 of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Sport, which precipitated the expulsion of South Africa from all sports federations. Today, 25 years later, South Africa stood ready to host the World Cup this year. South Africa's Government would work towards enhancing the visible theme of Saying No To Racism during the World Cup, contributing towards an atmosphere of tolerance and embracing diversity.

BERTIN BIDIMA (Cameroon), speaking in an explanation of vote after the vote on the resolution on combating defamation of religions, said Cameroon was home to all religions. All religions had always had healthy and peaceful relations with each other, as borne out by their collective worship sessions that contributed to peace reigning in Cameroon. By contrast, those States that were avowedly secular did not always abide by the freedom of worship. Defamation of religions was a matter of grave concern for the authorities and people of Cameroon. The delegation shared the concerns of the Organization of the Islamic Conference that urged the international community to ensure the holy nature of all religions was always protected everywhere.

FRANCK ISOH (Nigeria), in an explanation of vote after the vote, explained its affirmative position in favour of the resolution on a world of sports free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. As a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society it was Nigeria’s duty to safeguard freedom of worship. Nigeria also upheld the assumption that fundamental freedoms were mutually reinforced. Thus, it was incumbent on all to foster all international religious dialogue and harmony and to stamp out religious hatred and prejudice.

The Council then approved a list of members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, appointing Mona Zulficar, Alfred Ntunduguru Karokora, Shigeki Sakamoto, Chinsung Chung, Vladimir Kartashkin, Jose Antonio Bengoa Cabello, and Wolfgang Stefan Heinz. Further, it approved candidates for Special Procedure mandate holders, including Jasminka Dzumhur, for the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Vladimir Tochilovsky for the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and Verene Shepherd for the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India), speaking about the abovementioned appointments of members of subsidiary bodies of the Council and Special Procedures, said that India stood by the need to follow the letter and spirit of the institution-building package with regard to the appointment of the Special Procedures. While India appreciated the exceptional circumstances, and recognized the various constraints, India wished for the provisions of the institution-building package to be adhered and stuck to strictly, and joined the consensus today from the point of view that this did not constitute a precedent. India wished the new mandate holders the best in the execution of their mandates.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said with regard to the resolution on the protection of human rights defenders that it was unfortunate that that resolution did not address the dire predicament of human rights defenders in situations of foreign occupation. Algeria hoped that Norway would correct this serious omission in its future resolutions on this theme. Algeria also congratulated the Council for having finally adopted yesterday the continuing resolution to enable the Ad Hoc Committee on complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to fulfill its mandate. There was a need to steer clear of two contradictions in debating the pursuit of the Ad Hoc Committee’s mandate. The first was to question the legitimacy of the mandate given to the Committee by this Council’s decision 3/103 by invoking that it was the result of a vote where some Members voted against. The second related to the acceptability or not of engaging in the elaboration of a protocol to introduce complementary standards. These two contradictions were just further instances of the double standards that polluted the debate.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland), speaking about the resolution on combating the defamation of religions, said that questions of religion and belief had a major emotional dimension. Fighting discrimination must be intensified and given more priority in all societies and at all levels. Switzerland believed that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibiting racial and religious hatred is legally sufficient in this regard. It was incumbent upon all States to implement it. Switzerland stressed that the Swiss people’s decision to ban the construction of minarets was not a sign of hostility to Muslims. It only concerned new minarets. New mosques could be built. Freedom of worship could still be guaranteed. Only frank and constructive dialogue between social and religious groups and the State could lay fears to rest. More than ever before, States must fight intolerance here in Switzerland and wherever else it cropped up"

Concluding Remarks

JAVIER GARRIGUES (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union wished to reiterate the essential role of the Special Procedures to the work and credibility of the Council - the system had amply proved itself to be indispensable, and the Council must therefore continue to ensure that the independence and autonomy of Special Procedures was respected in all cases. Following the interactive dialogues with Special Procedures, the European Union expressed its deep concern at the growing inclination towards a systematic challenge of the independence, integrity, impartiality and professionalism of mandate holders. The European Union urged the Member States to protect the independence and autonomy of the Special Procedures that allowed them to discharge their mandate fully. The European Union stressed that the protection and promotion of human rights was a matter of priority for the international community, and urged the Council to continue to ensure that all resources available to protect and promote human rights were used without restriction. The European Union was seriously committed to facing the human rights challenges addressed in the Council, and its members were strong supporters of the spirit of cooperation.

MARTIN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, thanked the President of the Council for the leadership he had given to the Council’s work and members of the Bureau for their excellent collaboration. The African Group was pleased by the consensus outcome that had characterized the Council’s work and expressed profound appreciation to the High Commissioner and her able Secretariat as well as civil society which had continued to be a partner in the Council’s work.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, speaking on behalf of a number of non-governmental organizations, commented on the outcomes of the Human Rights Council. They were concerned that fresh suggestions on human rights defenders would undermine existing rights. Yet the Council had acknowledged their concerns. They had witnessed the first signs of de-polarization in this Council’s session. Efforts to uphold international human rights were commendable. The mandate of the Council was to improve human rights for all. The Council’s adoption of Universal Periodic Reviews raised questions on the meaning of cooperation, as some States merely took note of their recommendations. Human Rights Watch commended those who had defended the rights of non-governmental organizations in this session.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, regretted that the time allotted for interactive debates was shortened every session, and considered that holding four panels and an annual interactive debate, as well as a high-level segment, weakened the rest of the agenda. It was desirable that in future not more than two mandate holders be grouped for the same interactive dialogue. A modernist interpretation had been heard of the right to self-determination during the session. The only possible interpretation was that enshrined by the General Assembly and numerous international instruments. Bills such as those proposed in Italy targeting foreigners or migrants, or in France on the ban of the burka seemed to contradict the positions displayed in this room. All States and civil society should participate in the Forum for the Alliance of Civilisations. The delay of the work of the Working Group on complementary standards was deplored.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN, President of the Council, in his concluding remarks, said during this very intensive session, the Council had examined numerous subjects and specific situations relating to human rights. It had taken up such diverse issues as the right to food and the right to truth, as well as specific situations in the four corners of the earth, each with its own characteristics and challenges. The debates had had the advantage, once more, of the participation of the expertise of eminent people and players from various fields: the United Nations, States, academia, or others. The diverse agenda and quality of the contributions from a large number of speakers was one of the main strengths of the Council. However, some speeches had caused sadness and surprise - it was essential that all speakers speak in a respectful and appropriate manner, as it was vital for the debates to take place in the full mutual respect of the different opinions expressed.

The results reflected the concerns and common projects, but also the diversity of opinions and approaches to certain subjects and specific situations. However, Mr. Van Meeuwen was convinced that the Council should continue its discussions in an open manner, so as to transcend its differences through dialogue. Action did not come to an end once the Conference Chamber was left behind - it was important to continue to work together on all the themes and situations relative to human rights. The triple hallmark of action, responsibility, and dialogue must continue to guide the Council in the future. It was the responsibility of the Council, the responsibility of all, to always bear in mind the victims of human rights violations, and the common goal to protect and promote the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere in the world, without distinction.
__________

1. Joint statement on behalf of: Human Rights Watch; International Service for Human Rights; Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies; Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia); and Baha'i International Community.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record