Human Rights Council establishes Working Group on activities of Private Security Companies, renews mandates on Sudan and Somalia

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON 1 October 2010

Council Adopts Eight Texts and Closes Fifteenth Regular Session

The Human Rights Council this afternoon decided to establish a Working Group to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights, renewed for a period of one year the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, extended the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia, and adopted resolutions and decisions on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, the right to development and racism and racial discrimination. The Council also adopted statements on Ecuador and on the Strategic Framework of Programme 19 (Human Rights).

The Council decided to establish an intergovernmental open-ended Working Group with the mandate to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights, on the basis of the principles, main elements and the draft text for a possible convention proposed by the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination.

The Council decided to renew for a period of one year the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan and called upon the international community to continue providing support and technical assistance to the Government of Sudan and the Government of Southern Sudan in accordance with assessed needs.

The Council decided to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia for one year with a view to maximizing the provision and flow of technical assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights.

The President of the Council read out a statement on behalf of the Council in which it stressed that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing, as stated in paragraph 8 of the Vienna Declaration. The Council strongly rejected any attempt to disrupt the democratic institutional system in Ecuador.

The President, reaffirming full support to the mandate of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as contained in General Assembly resolution 48/141, read out a statement which invited the High Commissioner to present the Secretary-General's Proposed Strategic Framework for Programme 19 (Human Rights) to the Human Rights Council prior to its submission to the Committee for Programme and Coordination, for the purpose of the High Commissioner to compile and submit the views of the States and relevant stakeholders for transmission to the Committee for Programme and Coordination for its consideration.

In the resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, the Council reaffirmed that essential goods, such as food and medicines, should not be used as tools for political coercion and that under no circumstances should people be deprived of their own means of subsistence and development. It requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a thematic study on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, including recommendations on actions aimed at ending such measures.

Concerning the right to development, the Council decided to continue to act to ensure that its agenda promoted and advanced sustainable development and the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals and, in this regard, to lead to raising the right to development, as set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, to the same level and on par with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Council decided to hold a high-level panel discussion during its eighteenth session to reflect on the current human rights situations worldwide in respect of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, drawing inspiration from the exemplary example of Nelson Mandela to promoting and protecting human rights without distinction to race, colour or national or ethic origin.

Speaking in introductions of texts were Egypt on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement, Egypt, Nigeria, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, United States and South Africa.

Speaking as a concerned country were Ecuador and the Sudan.

Speaking in general comments were Saudi Arabia, Norway, Nigeria, Uruguay, China, Uganda, Cuba, Mauritania, Pakistan, Libya, United States, Cuba, Belgium on behalf of the European Union, and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group.

Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote were the United States, Belgium on behalf of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Norway, Argentina and Brazil.

Speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote were Switzerland, Japan, Thailand, Maldives and United States.

Observer States speaking after the end of the voting process were Egypt, Malta, Bolivia, Algeria, and Sudan.

Non-governmental organizations speaking were North-South XXI, Indian Council of South America, Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peoples and International Service for Human Rights.

The Council will hold its sixteenth regular session from 28 February to 25 March 2011.

Statement by the Council on Ecuador

SIHASAK PHUANKETKEOW, President of the Council, read the following declaration, in agreement with Council Member States:

“The Human Rights Council stresses that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, as stated in paragraph 8 of the Vienna Declaration. The Council strongly rejects any attempt to disrupt the democratic institutional system in Ecuador. The Council firmly supports the constitutional Government of President Rafael Correa of the Republic of Ecuador in its obligation to preserve the institutional democratic order, the rule of law, and the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

MAURICIO MONTALVO (Ecuador), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Human Rights Council for the attention it gave to the short-lived conflict that occurred in Ecuador only a few hours ago. This deplorable situation, which had been unanimously condemned by the international community, was now behind the country. The Parliament had not been suspended during the violence and Ecuador was proud to announce that the rule of law had prevailed. The President of the Republic proclaimed yesterday as the saddest day of his mandate, as blood had been shed. The President of Ecuador had restated his unwavering support for democracy and the State Constitution. Ecuador, loyal to its traditions, categorically rejected any attempts to destabilize the democratically elected Government. The interests and opinions of a few should never prevail over the will and good interest of the majority. Ecuador concluded by thanking all the countries that had expressed their support for the Government in the aftermath of yesterday’s shocking and unexpected events.
Action on Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures

In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.11) regarding human rights and unilateral coercive measures, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 14 against, and no abstentions, the Council calls upon all States to stop adopting or implementing unilateral coercive measures not in accordance with international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects, which create obstacles to trade relations among States, thus impeding the full realization of the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, in particular the right of individuals and peoples to development; reaffirms that essential goods, such as food and medicines, should not be used as tools for political coercion and that under no circumstances should people be deprived of their own means of subsistence and development; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in discharging her functions in relation to the promotion and protection of human rights, to pay due attention and give urgent consideration to the present resolution; requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a thematic study on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, including recommendations on actions aimed at ending such measures, taking into account all previous reports, resolutions and relevant information available to the UN system in this regard, and to present this study to the Council at its eighteenth session; decides to examine this question in accordance with its annual programme of work under the same agenda item.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, and Zambia.

Against (14): Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.

Abstentions (0):

AHMED IHAB GAMALELDIN (Egypt), introducing the draft resolution L.11, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the draft addressed the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on all human rights, in particular on the right to development. A number of partners however had not shared this view. The resolution called on States to stop adopting unilateral coercive measures that did not adhere to the relevant United Nations documents, provisions of the international law and principles of friendly relations between States. Those measures created obstacles to trade and created impediments to the full enjoyment of human rights. The text also condemned the use of unilateral coercive measures for economic purposes and reiterated the call to countries to stop with such measures and to abide to their international obligations under the relevant United Nations documents and treaties. Food and medicine should not be used for coercion. The Non-Aligned Movement was disappointed by the report on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures that had been presented to the Council, since it found that the report lacked analysis. The resolution therefore requested a thematic study to be conducted and presented to the Council at its eighteenth session. The Non-Aligned Movement looked forward to the adoption of this draft resolution with the widest support possible.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States had previously expressed its concerns on this resolution and its position was well known. The United States called for a vote on this text and would vote against it.

Action on Resolution on the Right to Development

In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.12) regarding the right to development, adopted by a vote of 45 in favour, none against, and 1 abstention, as orally amended, the Council decides to: continue to act to ensure that its agenda promotes and advances sustainable development and the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals and, in this regard, to lead to raising the right to development, as set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, to the same level and on par with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms; to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to seek the views of the United Nations Member States and relevant stakeholders on the work of the high-level task force and the way forward, taking into consideration the essential features of the right to development, using as a reference the Declaration on the Right to Development, as well as the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions on the right to development; to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to take all necessary measures and to allocate adequate resources for the effective implementation of the present resolution; also decides to review the progress of the implementation of the present resolution as a matter of priority at its future sessions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (45): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zambia.

Against (0):

Abstentions (1): United States.

AHMED IHAB GAMALELDIN (Egypt), introducing draft resolution L.12, expressed their sincere condolences for the passing away of the Chairperson Rapporteur of the Working Group on the right to development, Arjun Sengupta. Egypt appreciated the constructive engagement of the partners in this draft resolution, demonstrating a political will and commitment toward the realization of this overarching right, especially as the Council approached the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development. The draft resolution recognized that the high-level task force on the implementation of the right to development had completed its three-phase road map outlined in Council resolution 4/4. The draft resolution also took note with appreciation of the important contributions made by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Egypt concluded its introduction by reading out a number of oral amendments to the draft resolution.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States had a long-standing commitment to support development, which it saw as one of crucial pillars of its foreign policy. The United States supported the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and believed that the creation of conditions for the development of individuals was the primary responsibility of States and could be achieved though transparent institutions. The United States said that it would not be appropriate for any element of the debate surrounding the right to development to grow into an international treaty with legally binding obligations, and therefore the United States would abstain from the vote on this draft resolution.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union wished to thank the Non-Aligned Movement for its flexibility during the negotiations, and found it regrettable that it was not possible to adopt the resolution by consensus. The European Union was strongly committed to sustainable development, poverty reduction, and reaching the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The European Union stood ready to answer the calls of the High Commissioner the year where the international community could finally agree on adopting a framework to operationalise the right to development. The European Union welcomed the work of the High Level Task Force to develop a set of standards for the right to development and to mainstream the right to development. The appropriate next steps had not yet been decided on, and could take a variety of forms. The European Union wished to re-state its well-known position that it was not in favour of the elaboration of an international instrument of a binding nature, as it did not believe that this was the best means for promoting the right to development. For these reasons, the European Union would be voting in favour of the resolution.
Action on Resolution on Working Group on Elaborating Framework on Private Military and Security Companies

In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.22) regarding the open-ended intergovernmental working group to consider the possibility of elaborating an international regulatory framework on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 12 against, and 3 abstentions, as orally amended, the Council decides to establish an intergovernmental open-ended working group with the mandate to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights, on the basis of the principles, main elements and the draft text for a possible convention proposed by the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination; decides also that the intergovernmental open-ended working group shall meet every year until the fulfilment of its mandate, that it shall have a session of five working days a year and that the first session shall take place no later than May 2011; requests the President of the Human Rights Council to appoint, before the end of 2010, in consultation with regional groups, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the intergovernmental open-ended working group; requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Working Group with all necessary financial and human resources for the fulfilment of its mandate.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (12): Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.

Abstentions (3): Maldives, Norway, and Switzerland.
The results of the vote were as follows:

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), introducing draft resolution L.22, said that they had the honour to introduce the draft text on behalf of the African Group. The draft resolution called for an international monitoring mechanism on the activities of private military and security companies. The draft resolution called for the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental Working Group, which would make recommendations to the Council on how to proceed on this important issue. A legally binding instrument would be able to hold private military and security companies accountable to their international human rights obligations. The use of mercenaries remained a controversial issue and Nigeria felt that clear legal measures needed to be pursued. The open-ended intergovernmental Working Group would be able to help guide this process and make valuable suggestions in this regard. Nigeria also raised a number of oral amendments and concluded by saying that they hoped that this resolution would be adopted by a substantial majority of the Council’s members.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States took seriously the issue of private military security companies and their accountability. The most effective way to address those concerns would be the better implementation of existing laws, including the international code of conduct, which would oblige the private military security companies to conduct themselves in respect of human rights. The United States was disappointed that their and other delegations’ suggestions were not adequately addressed in the resolution. The United States said that the draft resolution would not produce an effective resolution of those issues and would divert resources, time and attention from more constructive approaches. Furthermore, the fundamental issues had not been sufficiently considered by the resolution, such as its implications on training and recruitment for private military security companies and even United Nations peacekeeping missions. The United States than called for the vote and said it would vote against the draft resolution.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said South Africa was to be thanked for its efforts to accommodate the concerns of all States. Nevertheless, the European Union was unable to support the resolution, as it did not consider that discussion of private military and security companies was appropriate in the Human Rights Council. It was not primarily a human rights question, and therefore went beyond the competence of the Council. The European Union did not support the proposal that a body established by the Human Rights Council should have the responsibility of establishing an international regulatory framework, nor a possible Convention. The European Union would therefore vote against the resolution.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that its objectives on private military and security companies was to reduce the risk that these companies might violate human rights. Taking into account various consultations, the Government of the United Kingdom had decided to implement robust codes of action for private military and security companies with which it worked and also to ensure adherence to those codes and the rules of international law. In light of these facts, the United Kingdom did not support the call for an international regulatory framework nor a legally binding document on the use of private military and security companies, which it did not consider to be a human rights issue. Furthermore, if the resolution was passed, the United Kingdom said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should find internal resources to pay for the activities of the intergovernmental Working Group. For these reasons, the United Kingdom would vote against the draft resolution.

BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the growing trend of using private military security companies to implement various assignments was of a great concern. It was particularly so because their use for military purposes blurred the essential difference between combatant and non-combatant, thus undermining the protection of civilians and humanitarian workers. Norway believed that development of a new legal instrument in the international law was outside of the Human Rights Council’s mandate and that the Council was not an appropriate forum for such discussion. Norway would therefore abstain from the vote.

ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Argentina would vote in favour of the resolution, since it supported inter-Governmental control on security companies, and hoped for a convention in this area. The Human Rights Council needed to look very carefully at the content and scope of such an undertaking, and the Working Group needed to be able to examine all possible inputs for such an aim, not just the documents of the Expert Group.

DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Switzerland was in favour of the better regulation of private military and security companies and their use in armed conflict. Switzerland added that it was not against a dialogue on the issue of establishing an international mechanism to monitor and oversee the activities of private military and security companies but this needed to be conducted in an inclusive and balanced manner. In summary, Switzerland regretted that the resolution was not adopted by consensus, which is why it had decided to abstain from the vote.

KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Japan was concerned that the Council had undertaken various new initiatives without taking into account their budgetary implications. In the future sessions of the Council, Japan asked that a way be found to provide members with the information on programme budgetary implications and the sufficient time to study them. Japan chose not to block consensus, but it hoped that additional budgetary needs would be met though savings and the prudent use of the current biennial budget.

After concluding taking actions on resolutions under this agenda item, the President of the Council opened the floor to general comments on all resolutions adopted under this agenda item.

ABDULWAHAB ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking in a general comment, said Saudi Arabia expressed regret that not enough time was devoted to consultations on some resolutions, and Saudi Arabia disassociated itself from the consensus in that regard. On L.23 on the right to freedom of assembly, this was not a universal right, as it was possible for it to be restricted in order to protect public order. The draft of this resolution did not take all points of view into consideration, especially concerning the new mandate. Therefore Saudi Arabia did not join consensus, especially with regard to the creation of a new mandate. On discrimination against women, Saudi Arabia had taken steps to protect the rights of women and strengthen them, based on Islamic Sharia that gave women all fundamental rights, protecting them from discrimination, and giving them a privileged place in society. The rights of women were among the most important issues, but the viewpoints of a number of States had not been taken on board in the resolution. This was not the time to create new mandates. Saudi Arabia regretted that there was overlap between mechanisms of the Council that would lead to expending energy, in particular with regard to this new mandate.

BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway), speaking in a general comment, thanked Mexico for its leadership on the important issue of countering terrorism. As co-sponsor of resolution L.5, Norway also expressed its satisfaction that the resolution on the right of indigenous peoples was unanimously adopted. This resolution was part of an ongoing process and could not end at the Human Rights Council. This resolution, along with the others, had to be followed up and carried through at the national level. Norway concluded its statement by reaffirming it commitment to the promotion of indigenous peoples rights.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking in a general comment, said that there were terrible incidents in Abuja today, in which seven Nigerians were killed in terrorist activities. Nigeria wanted once again to reaffirm the position of the Government on matters of terrorism. For Nigeria this incident was even more saddening as today Nigeria was celebrating its fiftieth anniversary.

LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE (Uruguay), speaking in a general comment, said Uruguay was not present in voting on the resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures and the resolution on the right to development, and would have voted in favour had it been there.

Action on Resolution Under the Agenda Item on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan

In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.35) regarding the situation of human rights in the Sudan, adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, as amended following a vote on L.3 which contained the amendment with 25 in favour, 18 against and 3 abstentions, the Council congratulates the Government and people of the Sudan for organizing and for widely participating in the April 2010 elections, which took place in a peaceful and orderly manner; welcomes the continued work of the Advisory Council for the Human Rights in Sudan and the establishment of the Southern Sudan Human Rights Commission; also welcomes the passing of the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission and calls on all parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to take urgent action to resolve key remaining post-referenda issues and facilitate peaceful, fair, timely and transparent referenda that reflect the will of the Southern Sudanese people, and to respect their results; decides to renew for a period of one year the mandate of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan; calls upon the international community to continue providing support and technical assistance to the government of Sudan and the government of Southern Sudan in accordance with assessed needs; and recognizes the work of the African Union and existing mechanisms, and calls for greater coordination and elimination of duplication.

The results of the vote on L.35 were as follows:

In favour (25): Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Maldives, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (19): Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ghana, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, and Senegal.

Abstentions (3): Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, and Thailand.

 

The results of the vote on L.3 were as follows:

In favour (25): Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Maldives, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (18): Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ghana, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, and Senegal,

Abstentions (3): Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Thailand.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), introducing the draft resolution L.3, on behalf of the African Group, said there was a wide consultation in drafting the text, which included three open-ended informal consultations and a series of consultations with all concerned, with a view to improving the text and pacing the way for the much-desired consensus on the text. The draft took into account the various successes achieved by the Sudanese Government in the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government of the Sudan and the Government of the Southern Sudan had recorded great successes in addressing human rights situation on the ground, including the concrete steps taken by the Government of the Sudan in implementing the recommendations of the Experts Group on Darfur. The draft resolution welcomed the continued work of the Advisory Council for Human Rights in the Sudan and the establishment of the Southern Sudan Human Rights Commission, welcomed the passing of the Southern Sudan Referendum Bill, and called on all parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to take urgent action to resolve key remaining post-referenda issues and facilitate peaceful, fairly, timely and transparent referenda.

Despite the enormous challenges faced by the Government of the Sudan, the authorities conducted successful elections in April 2010, which was a major achievement towards democratic transition in the Sudan. The African Group requested that the Council not only recognised the commitment of the Government of the Sudan to fully implement unconditionally the Comprehensive Peace Agreement but also had faith in its expression of commitment. What the Sudan needed now from the Council and the United Nations system was continued provision of support and technical assistance to the Government of National Unity to enable it to provide the conductive atmosphere for the enjoyment of human rights by its citizens.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), introducing draft resolution L.35, an amendment to L.3, said that its thoughts and condolences were with the victims and their families of the bombing that occurred this morning in Abuja, Nigeria. With regard to the amendment to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on the Sudan, the United States said that the Independent Expert made two trips to the Sudan and had engaged closely with the Government and reported his findings to the Council. Many of the Independent Expert’s recommendations remained unfulfilled and the United States hoped that the Council and the international community remained engaged on these matters. The result of this resolution would have an impact on tens of millions of Sudanese civilians. The mandate of the Independent Expert was the only one in the United Nations system that covered all of the Sudan and the United States therefore strongly urged that all delegations support this amendment.

BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway), speaking in a general comment, said since the Addis Abeba agreement of 1992, Norway had been a strong supporter of the work of the Sudanese Government to protect and promote human rights, and it was against this background that Norway supported the extension of the work of the Independent Expert for a period of one year. Norway noted the broad support in the Council for the work he had undertaken so far, and also noted the cooperation by the Government of Sudan with the Independent Expert. At this important juncture in the peace process, Norway firmly believed in continuing the work underway. This could not be the time to end this work, and Norway therefore supported the amendment proposed to extend the mandate.

QIAN BO (China), speaking in a general comment, said the Sudan had make great progress in implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and in achieving democracy. China spoke highly of the commitment of the Government of the Sudan to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms. China supported the Sudan and the African Group in ways to promote reconciliation and to promote and protect human rights, and supported the draft resolution proposed by the African Group.

JUSTINIAN MUHWEZI KATEERA (Uganda), speaking in a general comment, said that the report of the Independent Expert had shed light on the continuing human rights violations occurring in the Sudan. Uganda also remained concerned that only five of the forty-five recommendations made to the Sudan had been implemented. Uganda’s would vote for a continuation of the Independent Expert’s mandate and hoped that the Council would follow suit. The victims of the genocide in Rwanda looked to the Human Rights Commission but were disappointed in their reaction and Uganda hoped that the Council would not repeat this history and forget the victims of the Sudan.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in a general comment, said this Council and the United Nations human rights machinery in general had over the years addressed human rights in the Sudan, and had convened a special session to analyze the situation that was affecting Darfur. There had been significant progress since then, recognized by some delegations, and Sudan had systematically cooperated. The proposal of the African Group had many merits that needed to be considered and taken into account, and had the additional merit of having the consent of the country concerned, thereby ensuring commitment and cooperation with the Human Rights Council. Cuba could not endorse the proposed amendment, and supported the proposal of the African Group.

CHEIKH AHMED OULD ZAHAF (Mauritania), speaking in a general comment, underlined that Mauritania was firmly committed to the principles of human rights in terms of their promotion, protection and respect. Mauritania then described its own experience related to the report on the instances of slavery in Mauritania, when the Council had sent a special expert to investigate. The Special Procedures were there to assist countries to overcome specific challenges, Mauritania said. Some countries were exposed to specific circumstances, for example in the Sudan there had been progress in the promotion and protection of human rights – Mauritania then asked why the members of the Council insisted that there be an expert or a rapporteur, instead of allowing countries to continue on the road of progress.

AFTAB A. KHOKHER (Pakistan), speaking in a general comment, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference had initially supported the mandate of the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in the Sudan. Efforts made by the Government of Sudan to work with the Independent Expert and other measures it had taken were a clear demonstration of its commitment to democracy and the promotion of human rights in its country. Pakistan believed that all mandates required the consent and willing participation of the concerned country and the proposed amendment contradicted this fact. For these reasons, Pakistan said that it opposed this amendment.

IBRAHIM ALDREDI (Libya), in a general comment, said in the light of the positive developments that had taken place in the Sudan and the improvement of human rights in the country and the cooperation seen, in addition to the negotiations underway between the various parties, and in addition to all the efforts made by Libya to unify the positions of the various parties and induce a rapprochement in viewpoints, there was no need to amend the text introduced by Nigeria, nor to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert. The Sudan should continue to make every effort to strengthen and promote human rights.

JOHN UKEC LUETH UKEC (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, said that the Sudan was grateful for the opportunity to discuss the situation in the country, which could be considered as a good one compared to others. The Sudan said that those who proposed the resolution were throwing stones on glass houses. Regarding the comments by Uganda, the Sudan said that the Lord’s Resistance Army was a product of the Government of Uganda and the Sudan did not understand why some western governments were in bed with Uganda. The problem was that those governments considered there were good and bad rebels; the bad rebels were those in the Sudan, those in Uganda were bad. The Sudan, as a member of the United Nations, was not a bad country; it had never invaded another country, not was it responsible for killings. Norway had been in the Sudan for many years and had known the country well. The Sudan was not an angel, the speaker said, but neither was any other country. The root cause of the eruption of violation of human rights in Darfur was the rebels from the Justice and Equality Movement; the Government had a responsibility to protect its citizens and had therefore deployed its security forces. Unfortunately, this situation erupted when the Government was busy resolving the longest-standing war and negotiating and agreeing on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The Agreement was done because the Sudanese were fed up with the war and in the interest of peace, the whole Government was reorganised and the Government of Southern Sudan had been created from scratch. The achievements in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement included a new currency, new army, repatriation of internally displaced persons and others.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that there was a unique opportunity to strengthen the progress that had been made in the human rights situation in the Sudan and to ensure its continuation in the future. The relationship between the human rights mechanisms and the Government of the Sudan should be commended. Brazil praised the transparency and the objectivity exemplified by this relationship and hoped that the Sudan would serve as an example of a country that had made great strides in improving its national human rights record. The Human Rights Council had an important role in helping the Sudan achieve its objectives. Brazil’s vote was not one of distrust but a vote of confidence in support for the Sudan’s efforts in promoting human rights. Brazil believe that there was still room for improvement in the Sudan’s human rights and would therefore vote in favour of renewing the Independent Expert’s mandate. Finally, Brazil thanked the Sudanese Government for its constructive engagement with the Human Rights Council.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union regretted that the negotiations on the draft resolution on the human rights situation in the Sudan could not lead to a consensus extension of the mandate of the Independent Expert, but nevertheless thanked all delegations that had participated in the discussions. The European Union supported the proposed amendment unreservedly, having listened closely to the presentation by the Independent Expert at this session, who had presented some positive developments, but had said they were still fragile and that it would be premature for the Council, given the challenges for the future, to remove the mandate. The continuation of the Independent Expert's mandate was the best way to ensure follow-up and monitoring of the human rights situation in the Sudan at a key time for the country when the situation remained of concern. Possible alternatives to the extension of the mandate had been presented, but none offered the same guarantees of objectivity. The Independent Expert should continue to provide support to the protection and promotion of human rights in the Sudan. The European Union would vote in favour of the amendment, and urged all other delegations to do so as well.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.3, on behalf of European Union, said the European Union was delighted at the adoption of the amendment calling for the extension of the mandate of the Independent Expert for human rights situation in the Sudan. The draft resolution did cover the main points and the European Union would vote in favour of this text. The European Union had made suggestions during the consultation process to make the text more descriptive of the situation in the Sudan. Some of those suggestions were included by the Sudan and Nigeria, but others, some of which were important, were left out. The draft resolution would allow the Council to remain appraised of the situation in the Sudan, the European Union concluded.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.3, said that they were not very clear where they were on the scenario. Moreover, Cuba was not sure if there would be a vote on this draft resolution but a vote was requested, Cuba would vote against it.

QIAN BO.. (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote with regard to the amendment made by the Member States, expressed great regret, as this part of the draft, compared to the spirit of the original text by the African Group, ran counter to it, and the amendment ran against the will of Sudan as a sovereign State, as well as against the will of the African Group. If the Council wished to take action on this amendment, China would vote against it.

VIJAVAT ISARABHAKDI (Thailand), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Thailand had always been of the position that country mandates should be carefully considered and take into account particular situation of that country. Mandates must be sustainable and to do so, there must be engagement with the country concerned. In the case of the Sudan there was a considerable progress in the human rights situation and in the peace process. Nevertheless many challenges still remained, and now the need for engagement was more important than ever. The international community and the Human Rights Council should remain engaged with the Government of the Sudan in the promotion and protection of human rights and in facing challenges thereof. Thailand thought that such engagement could be achieved by other mechanisms at the disposal of the Human Rights Council and that those mechanisms should have been explored in more depth. For all of the above reasons, Thailand abstained on both amendment and draft resolution.

LIVSHA ZAHIR (Maldives), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on resolution L.3, said that domestic efforts in the Sudan to strengthen human rights in conjunction with the international community were important. The Maldives was impressed with the cooperation showed by the Government of the Sudan with the Independent Expert. The Maldives believed it would be premature to end that cooperative relationship now, which was why the Maldives voted in favour of the extension of the Independent Expert’s mandate and looked forward to reviewing this issue in a year’s time.

Action on Decision Under Agenda item on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Forms of Intolerance

Action on Resolution on Nelson Mandela International Day

In a decision (A/HRC/15/L.21) regarding Nelson Mandela International Day, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to hold a high-level panel discussion during its eighteenth session to reflect on the current human rights situations worldwide in respect of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, drawing inspiration from the exemplary example of Nelson Mandela to promoting and protecting human rights without distinction to race, colour or national or ethic origin; further decides that the panel discussion will focus on the promotion and protection of human rights through tolerance and reconciliation; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to take the necessary measures for the observance of Nelson Mandela International Day; encourages all States Members of the United Nations and relevant stakeholders to engage fully in the panel discussion with a view to guarantee the appropriate balance and diversity of views on the issue.

JERRY MATTHEWS MATJILA (South Africa), introducing the draft resolution L.21, said that the General Assembly had designated 18 July as Nelson Mandela International Day. The African Group, Australia and with the support of over 100 co-sponsors had decided to call for the convening of a high level panel during the eighteenth session of the Council to celebrate the contribution Mr. Mandela had made in promoting and protecting human rights and combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The panel should reflect on the current human rights situation worldwide and engage in a dialogue on how the human rights systems could benefit from the example set by Mr. Mandela and his approach. The racism agenda had created many divides in this Council but this panel would seek to set aside those differences and celebrate Mr. Mandela and his call for the creation of harmonious society, tolerance among people and nationals, care for children and advancement for women. South Africa then introduced oral amendments to the text.

IBRAHIM ALDREDI (Libya), speaking in a general comment, said Libya wished to express to the Council its appreciation for having adopted this resolution regarding to Nelson Mandela International Day, and wished to pay tribute to this great man, remembering the sacrifices he had made, such as 25 years of imprisonment in South Africa. He was a great man.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in a general comment, said the United States was pleased to co-sponsor this text and welcomed the efforts made to move the Council forward on combating racial discrimination which was a priority for all at the Council.

Action on Resolution under Agenda Item on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building

Action on Resolution on Assistance to Somalia in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.2/Rev.1) regarding assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council expresses serious concern over the growing negative impact of the prolonged instability of Somalia on neighbouring countries and beyond, the significant civilian casualties caused by ongoing hostilities, and the plight of internally displaced persons; strongly condemns the attacks and other acts of violence perpetrated by terrorist groups and the ongoing takeover by force of several private media houses; urges the Transitional Federal Government, Member States, stakeholders and the entire international community to continue to isolate and take all required measures against individuals and entities whose actions threatened the peace, security or stability of Somalia and that of the region, including those engaged in terrorist acts, while ensuring that any measure taken to counter terrorism complied with international law; urges all parties in Somalia to reject and stop all acts of violence, refrain from engaging in hostilities, prevent any act likely to increase tension and fully respect their obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law; calls upon all stakeholders to assist Somalia to design a sustainable roadmap with bench marks and monitor its implementation on the ground, and to report to the Council on a regular basis; decides to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert for one year with a view to maximizing the provision and flow of technical assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), introducing draft resolution L.2, said that over the years the African Group had not only stood solidly behind Somalia but had always drawn the attention of the international community to the enormity of the human rights situation in that country. It was therefore not surprising that the Independent Expert described it as the worst human rights and humanitarian crisis in the world. The magnitude of the situation was not only huge but also one that required the most urgent attention of the international community with the aim of setting Somalia on the path of recovery, peace and stability. The draft resolution reaffirmed the efforts of the Transitional Federal Government and strongly condemned the increasing wave of violence perpetuated by terrorist groups in the country, particularly the ongoing takeover of several media houses in Mogadishu. Furthermore, the draft resolution called upon the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to accord due consideration to any Somali request for assistance from the Universal Periodic Review Trust Fund in preparation for the upcoming review of Somalia in May 2011. Finally, Nigeria said that draft resolution L.2 called for the extension of the Independent Expert’s mandate for one year with a view to, among others, maximizing the provision and flow of technical assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights.

YUSUF MOHAMED ISMAIL (Somalia), speaking as a concerned country, said it was needless to underline how much it appreciated the support of the African Group and all other members of the Council. Over the past two and a half years of the interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on Somalia, the proactive engagement of the Transitional Federal Government to respect human rights had been unequivocal. Somalia appreciated receiving technical assistance and timely and swift humanitarian aid. Due to the peculiar situation, Somali institutions on all levels and both inside and outside of the country were entitled to be fully respected by United Nations agencies and Somalia hoped that the draft resolution would have the necessary impact in the ground. In conclusion, Somalia strongly commended the role of the United States for organising a side event for Somalia yesterday and Somalia was looking forward to its concrete outcomes.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that it was delighted to support the resolution on the extension of the Independent Expert’s mandate on Somalia and to see it adopted by consensus. Furthermore, the United States delegate thanked the Government of Somalia for their firm commitment to cooperating with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.

Statement by the President on the Strategic Framework of Programme 19 (Human Rights)

SIHUASAK PHUANKETKEOW, President of the Council, in a statement reaffirming the full support to the mandate of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as contained in General Assembly resolution 48/141, read a statement prepared in consultation with the High Commissioner, in which:

“The Human Rights Council acknowledges the on-going constructive dialogue between the High Commissioner's Office and the Human Rights Council and thanks the High Commissioner, in particular, for her letter dated 3 May 2010 to the President of the Council, asking him to share the Secretary-General's Proposed Strategic Framework with the members of the Council and offering to compile and submit to the Committee for Programme Coordination any comments they may have; invites the High Commissioner to present the Secretary-General's Proposed Strategic Framework for Programme 19 (Human Rights) to the Human Rights Council prior to its submission to the Committee for Programme and Coordination, for the purpose of the High Commissioner to compile and submit the views of the States and relevant stakeholders for transmission to the Committee for Programme and Coordination for its consideration.”

This statement was adopted without a vote.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) extended its sincere thanks to the President of the Human Rights Council and said it appreciated his leadership skills. Cuba would be withdrawing its draft resolution L.30 since with the statement by the President that had just been adopted there was no need for this draft resolution. Cuba then thanked a number of delegations and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for their efforts in and reaching this solution. Some people thought there were some cards up the sleeve, hidden. Cuba did not have a hidden agenda behind L. 30 which might undermine the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A country like Cuba, a small country, had an interest in developing multilateralism, its policy did not boil down to using force which would influence the work of the United Nations Secretariat, in particular the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which must be strong and with real capacity to carry out such an important mandate.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking in a general comment, said that the European Union attached great importance on the relationship between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council. However, there was a clear distinction between these two bodies and the rules of procedure should be carefully observed. The Human Rights Council had no role in the management policies of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the High Commissioner was first and foremost accountable to the Secretary-General in New York.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU, (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, in a general comment, said with regard to the statement read on behalf of the Council on the Council's relationship with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nigeria wished to state unequivocally that the African Group supported the mandate of the High Commissioner, and wished to support how the mandate was reflected, to the effect that the Council should take over the responsibilities of the Commission with respect to the High Commissioner in order to create better work. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had dual functions - one in respect of advocacy, in which no one could touch the Office, the other was in policies, and the Council should be included in this process. The African Group loved the High Commissioner - she was from Africa, and Africa would protect her interests, and these lay in working within the inter-Governmental process. If she were to work away from this process, her capacity would be undermined. The African Group wanted her to function, but it had to be done, in some respects, through the Council. The Council should be together on this, and Africa would always support the High Commissioner - she was a wonderful person.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States) said the United States had long emphasized the need for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to remain independent from the Human Rights Council. As the United Nations system dedicated to human rights, it must have the autonomy to respond to human rights situations independently and impartially and to provide assistance and support to countries that needed it. The High Commissioner had fostered an atmosphere of cooperation and the United States would always defend the independence of her Office.

Statements from Observer States After the Council Concluded Taking Acton on All Resolutions and Decisions

AHMED IHAB GAMALELDIN (Egypt) said that it attached great importance to combating maternal mortality. However, Egypt associated itself with the delegations of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which did not accept the resolution L. 27 that promoted the legalization of abortion in one of the operative paragraphs. Egypt expressed its discontent with the oral amendments that were unnecessarily rushed through and the delegation would have hoped that more time be given to discuss the draft resolution properly and achieve consensus.

NICOLE MILLER (Malta) said on resolution L.27, on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights, Malta was strongly committed to undertake initiatives to prevent maternal mortality and morbidity, and could support and adopt many of the recommendations contained in the thematic study on Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. At the same time, with regard to Operative Paragraph one of the text of the resolution, Malta wished to reaffirm that abortion was a denial of the fundamental right to life, and all references to this in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights thematic study could not legitimise abortion nor allow anybody to consider it a right or a service.

MAYSA URENA MENACHO (Bolivia), in reference to the resolution L.14 on human rights and access to drinking water and sanitation, said that Bolivia was grateful for the transparency in the negotiating process, which was a difficult one as there were some countries which did not want this to become a human right. In accordance with progressiveness of human rights, Bolivia agreed with the resolution by the General Assembly which had recognised the right to water and sanitation as a human right. The right to water and sanitation was an independent and explicit human right and should be recognised as such. Now States needed to be urged to promote a human right to water and sanitation, and not just the right to water and sanitation. Bolivia would continue to work with all to ensure that the future resolution would be even more focused on safe drinking water and sanitation. Bolivia expressed its reservation to operative paragraphs seven and nine, which opened up the possibility of engaging with private service providers in provision of drinking water and safe sanitation services.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that Algeria identified itself entirely with the statements just made by Nigeria and Egypt. Algeria said that there was a suggestion at this session that the President be asked to deliver in the name of the Council a statement that would introduce new language in the content of the United Nations General-Assembly resolution 48/141. Neither the President nor the Council had this power and the delegate was pleased that legality finally prevailed. Algeria also pointed out that since the Council had asserted the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. To be consistent, should the Council not then indicate how the least developed countries could find the wherewithal to comply? Algeria also complained that the Council had set up too many new mechanisms, running into the millions of dollars. They were laden at this session with 80 reports that the Council had no time to read. While members complained about the paper inflation at this session, the Council contributed to it for future sessions. In the words of the Algerian delegate, it was time to clean up this mess.

JERRY MATTHEWS MATJILA (South Africa) said with regard to L.22 and the open-ended Working Group on the possibility of elaborating a legally binding instrument on the regulation of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on human rights, there was nothing to substitute a transparent and all-inclusive inter-Governmental working process. This Working Group would be a forum for all to receive inputs and dialogue among themselves to find solutions. The Human Rights Council was a home and a platform for those who needed it the most - where democracy was destroyed by the machinations of some private military security companies, whose actions in Africa had left behind destruction and suffering. This was a globalised world, where borders were collapsing. The Council must keep pace with these developments and make sure that those responsible anywhere would be held accountable, and victims would have recourse. The Council must ensure that those who found profit in overthrowing Governments would not have their actions tolerated any more.

JOHN UKEC LUETH UKEC (Sudan) said that the Sudan was saddened about the outcome of the vote on the mandate on Sudan and cherished the countries which had heard it and its pain while it endured smearing and mud slinging. Those who had stood with the Sudan in this injustice caused by selectivity and double standards were very good friends of the Sudan. They had also sent the message to rebels that had capitalized on the portrayal of the Sudan – they should embrace negotiations for the lasting peace. The Sudan gave special thanks to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the African Group and the Arab Group, who had heard the voices of the Sudanese people. It was not easy to fight countries of technology, money and power. The Sudan held no hard feelings towards countries which felt that there was a need to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert for Sudan. The work of the Council must be advanced, the Sudan said, and the Sudan would fulfil all the promises it had made. Sudan could not work under duress and some other institution would get the credit; everything that had been done over the past five years, it was the Sudan that should get the credit. Sudan could do the things without the supervision of anyone and did not want peanuts in the guise of technical assistance.

CURTIS DOEBBLER, of North-South XXI, reiterated its confidence and support for the work of the Human Rights Council. However, North-South XXI regretted that the Council had once again failed to take appropriate action to protect the massively violated human rights of the Palestinian people in the two resolutions adopted on this situation. North-South XXI also regretted that even those members of the Council whose hearts and minds were committed to ending the suffering of the Palestinian people, had favoured procrastination instead of urgent action. In conclusion on this issue, Israel’s impunity for violations of international human rights law should be ended and the Human Rights Council should assume a leadership role.
RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, commended Mexico and Guatemala for firmly maintaining the language of the resolution that protected the collective rights of the indigenous peoples. The Indian Council of South America did not accept the reduction in the text that would reduce this or the right to self-determination. There had been several attempts to reduce the rights here at the Council by reducing the scope of the work of the Independent Expert. The Indian Council of South America rejected the attempts to reduce the scope and application of the collective rights of the indigenous peoples or the right to self-determination. Those rights must remain intact and understood to be within the mandate as expressed in the Charter and Common Article 1 of the Covenants on Human Rights.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said no one could deny the essential and determining contribution the Commission on Human Rights made to the protection and promotion of human rights - the Human Rights Council was still in its infancy and had yet to write the chapters that would, hopefully, make their mark in the history of achievements in protecting and promoting human rights. The Goldstone Report was a milestone in the history of the protection and promotion of human rights, as it showed the way to tackle the issue of human rights by tacking a strictly legal approach. It was disappointing that the Council had not judged it important to implement the recommendations contained in the Report. Non-governmental organizations highly valued the spirit of dialogue and cooperation that drove the work of the Council, and was convinced that the search for consensus should not be an end to itself, and should certainly not be reached at the expense of the protection and promotion of human rights. Each State being reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review should be reminded of their obligation to comply with all recommendations made by Treaty Bodies.

SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW, President of the Council, in brief concluding remarks, congratulated all for what had been accomplished, and thanked all participants and stakeholders for their participation. The session was ending, but next week discussions would begin on the review process for the Human Rights Council. The Council expressed its heartfelt condolences to the people of Nigeria for the events that had occurred today.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record