Human Rights Council holds General Segment Discussion

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON

2 March 2011

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a general segment discussion in which delegations that were not represented by a dignitary at the high-level segment had the opportunity to take the floor. The Council heard statements from 22 countries as well as civil society representatives on a range of issues affecting the promotion and protection of human rights.

Numerous speakers applauded the Human Rights Council’s swift reaction to the events in Libya, which resulted in the Council calling a Special Session on 25 February 2011 during which it adopted a resolution on the situation of human rights in Libya. The sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council began against the backdrop of many tumultuous global events, including violent conflicts and uprisings, natural calamities and the ongoing global economic and financial crises. These events were stark reminders that despite the many achievements made in the promotion and protection of human rights much more remained to be done. It was clear that the current global events would require the Council to be able to respond to any new situation and to ensure that its decisions would translate into real action and progress on the ground. Speakers said it was heartening to note that despite many criticisms, the Council had shown its viability and ability to make swift and effective decisions.

Other delegations noted that while they were pleased with the swift and decisive action the Council had taken on the situation in Libya, they felt there was a double standard operating in the Council because the same swift action had not been taken when other countries committed human rights violations. For example, the same attention and speed had not been given to the gross and systematic human rights violations by Israel in the Palestinian territories and this could be seen as a strategic choice to promote human rights in one place, but not in others. The Council must continue to address other issues that plagued the Middle East, including the continuation of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, the deadlock in the peace process and the lack of a permanent settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. An important issue for the Council should be the resumption of negotiations on the Occupied Arab Territories that would guarantee the Palestinians the establishment of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.

Several speakers raised the issue of growing religious intolerance and religious persecution with attacks and discrimination perpetrated against religious communities. Freedom of religion, conscience and belief made the enjoyment of other human rights possible. The State had the duty to defend the right of the freedom of religion and must promote religious tolerance in society through educational programmes and a judicial system that did not permit impunity. Peaceful coexistence and national integration would serve the common good whereas intolerance would only stifle growth.

The impact of the world economic crisis was also mentioned by several delegations, with some noting that with global unemployment and food prices on the rise, guaranteeing the enjoyment of human rights was a challenge. If the international community could not make adjustments and eliminate poverty the protection and promotion of human rights would remain empty words.

Speakers from Member States this afternoon included representatives of Jordan, China, Malaysia, Qatar, Slovakia, Chile and Djibouti.

Taking the floor from Observer States were representatives from Oman, Honduras, the Holy See, Nepal, Belarus, Morocco, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Namibia, the United Arab Emirates, Nicaragua, Barbados, Israel and Afghanistan.

The following civil society representatives and speakers from non-governmental organizations also took the floor: the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions; Mervat Rishmawi, in her personal capacity as a human rights defender; Mary Jean Real, in her personal capacity as a woman’s human rights advocate; FIAN International; and the International Service for Human Rights.

Speaking in right of reply were Myanmar and Belarus.

The Council will meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 3 March when it will hear the annual report of the High Commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, and hold an interactive dialogue with her.

Right of Reply

HTIN LYNN (Myanmar), speaking in a right of reply, responded to the statement made by the Czech Republic about the political process in Myanmar and said that it seemed that the Czech delegation made these comments based on information that was far from the facts and contrary to the situation on the ground. The people of Myanmar had chosen their constitution in 2008 and a number of political parties were registered. The elections were inclusive and fair, elected members of the Parliament were working toward a multiparty democratic system and the Human Rights Council should not allow the interests of one group of persons to prevail over the interests of another group. It was regrettable to learn that the speaker was not aware of the complexity of their domestic political process and the delegation rejected the irresponsible comments made by the Czech delegation.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), speaking in a right of reply, said that Belarus found some statements made during the High Level Segment to be overtly emotional. The people of Belarus had chosen their path and other countries would have to respect that. Belarus was guided by the right of citizens to determine the path of the society they were a part of and Belarus would continue to assert that those rights needed to be defended democratically, without violence and according to the Constitution. Concerning the calls for release of political detainees, Belarus said there were no such detainees in Belarus. They were criminals and would bear criminal responsibility. There was no point in artificially creating a situation of Belarus in this Council. There was a need for a constructive climate in this forum and therefore Belarus was refraining from making statements about human rights situation in a number of European countries.

Statements in General Segment

MUTAZ FALEH HYASSAT (Jordan), said that the Council of the Arab League, the Human Rights Council, the Security Council and the General Assembly were all clear in condemning the targeting and killing of civilians and calling for the immediate cessation of all acts of violence. The recent events in the Middle East had shown the need for a sincere reform process and to face these challenges with fresh thinking and determination that reflected the will of the people. However, other issues that plagued the region must continue to be addressed, including the continuation of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, compounded with the deadlock in the peace process and the lack of a permanent settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jordan had launched genuine political and economic reforms and a comprehensive assessment process including the review of relevant legislation. Jordan had embarked on a process to effectively address the backlog in its treaty reporting in order to prepare and submit its initial and periodic reports in an expeditious and timely manner. Two periodic reports had been considered by the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee and Jordan had recently submitted two initial reports under the Optional Protocols to the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

WANG QUN (China), said that the Human Rights Council had been functioning well in its five years of existence and last week agreement was reached on the result document of the Council. At present, the impact of the international financial crisis was still going on and global unemployment was on the rise. Against this background, the enjoyment of human rights was a challenge and if the international community could not make adjustments and eliminate poverty the protection and promotion of human rights would remain empty words. China encouraged countries to increase their technical assistance. Due to the different traditions of countries there were different perceptions of the human rights concept. China had been following closely the crisis in Libya and they were of the view that violations had to stop and that the current crisis should be resolved through dialogue and peaceful means. China hoped that the international community would make constructive efforts for a speedy resolution to the crisis in Libya. The Chinese Government attached great importance to the respect of human rights and it also made huge investments in post-disaster reconstruction.

OTHMAN HASHIM (Malaysia), said that this session of the Human Rights Council started against the backdrop of many tumultuous global events, including violent conflicts and uprisings, natural calamities and the ongoing global economic and financial crises. Those events were stark reminders that despite the many achievements made in the promotion and protection of human rights much more remained to be done. It was clear that current global events would require the Council to be able to respond to any new situation and to ensure that its decisions would translate into real action and progress on the ground. It was heartening to note that despite many criticisms, the Council had shown its viability and ability to make swift and effective decisions. Malaysia hoped that the same enthusiasm and determination could be applied to ensure that the hope and aspirations of other oppressed populations around the world, including the Palestinians, were also realised. Recent events demonstrated the link between security and socioeconomic development. That was why it was important for the international community to put more effort into translating its commitments into the international principles of universality and inter-dependence of all rights, including right to development.

ABDULLA FALAH ABDULLA AL-DOSARI (Qatar) extended Qatar’s condolences to the families of the victims in Libya. Qatar had been one of the first countries to condemn the use of force against civilians and urged the Security Council and the Arab League to take immediate action. The role played by the Council in this matter had made it one of the most important bodies for ending violations of human rights around the world. Qatar had supported the special session and the special resolution on Libya. Concerned at the evolving humanitarian problem, Qatar called on the international community to assist refugees on the borders of Libya to return them to their home countries. However, Qatar did not understand why the same attention and speed had not been given to the gross and systematic human rights violations by Israel in the Palestinian territories. Qatar believed that it was a strategic choice to promote human rights and the Emir of Qatar had stated its national vision would concentrate on human rights, education, health, the environment, and the rights of women and children and foreign workers. Qatar had participated in all of the meetings to review the work of the Council and reaffirmed the provisions of institution building in section 16 and paragraph 261 of the resolution.

FEDOR ROSOCHA (Slovakia), said that the cry of the Arab world for inherent human dignity was testimony that human rights and fundamental freedoms were truly universal, inalienable values shared by humankind. Whatever corner of the world, the people wanted to have their say in freely choosing their representatives. Democracy was about the accountability of government to its people and they were full of expectations of a next wave of global democratization processes that had swept over Central and Eastern Europe 21 years ago, hoping for the same peaceful scenario as had been the case for the former Czech-Slovakia’s velvet revolution. Slovakia called upon the Libyan authorities to cease immediately all violence against its own population and enable the peaceful transition to democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and good governance. Slovakia said that there were far more situations that required the international community’s close attention during this Council session. In particular, they demanded a thorough look at the increasing attacks against individuals belonging to religious communities in various parts of the world. The entire international community was witnessing people deprived of their liberties and freedoms and they were looking closely also at this body in expectation that their legitimate demands would be duly heard and that one form of tyranny would not be replaced by another.

PEDRO OYARCE (Chile), said that the recent review and the way in which the Council reacted last Friday to the situation in Libya demonstrated that the Council was capable of responding on a global level and wherever necessary. It was fundamental that the work on those topics was continued with the participation of all regions. It was also fundamental to better understand the relationship between peace, freedom and security and the Council had a crucial role to play in this. Technical assistance and capacity building should never be neglected, together with early warning systems as early actions could help strengthen national institutions. More resources and more training were needed to ensure the culture of human rights. The negotiations in the last few weeks had demonstrated the potential and the shortcomings of the Council. Its credibility must be maintained and it must tackle all serious situations without selection. Also, it must address new challenges of diversity and inter-culturalism. Chile then expressed the appreciation of the work of non-governmental organizations which were crucial in the global human rights system.

MOHAMED SIAD DOUALEH (Djibouti), said that the Council had shown its ability to react promptly and effectively and that it welcomed the consensus decision on Libya. There were deep lying roots, such as inequality and the financial crisis, which caused the uprisings in the Middle East. The Government of Djibouti had been working to improve the well being of the whole of the population in its country by the sharing the benefits of growth with a focus on the most vulnerable people in rural and poor areas. A development approach based on human rights required the assistance of international organizations and the government would like these organizations to participate in such a conference next year in Djibouti. The Government had reviewed the issues recommended in the Universal Periodic Review and parliament had abolished the death penalty.

YAHYA SALIM AL-WAHAIBI (Oman), said that Oman attached importance to the principles underlined in the United Nations Charter and they tried to disseminate the human rights culture in their country with the cooperation of civil society and human rights organizations. Thanks to the Omani renaissance they saw great development in human rights and they were committed to strengthening human rights in the field and the Sultan of Oman was aware that human rights protection was a common duty of all people because this ensured peace and stability.

ROBERTO FLORES BERMUDEZ (Honduras), said that recent events demonstrated that human rights were vital to providing security, development and the conditions in which human beings could realize their potential. Honduras had reformed its Constitution to enlarge the participation of the population and consultation on certain themes. The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, headed by a woman, had been created and Honduras had actively participated in the Universal Periodic Review process. The review process had confirmed the positive evolution of this Council. The field of human rights presented permanent challenges that required constant vigilance over the work done to meet them.

SILVANO M. TOMASI (Holy See), said that freedom of religion, conscience and belief affected personal identity and basic choices and made the enjoyment of other human rights possible. The State had the duty to defend the right of the freedom of religion and must promote religious tolerance in society through educational programmes and a judicial system that did not permit impunity. Peaceful coexistence and national integration should serve the common good whereas intolerance would only stifle growth. Specific measures within the United Nations system must be devised and existing mechanisms could be employed. For example, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion should be invited regularly to include information on persecution of religious groups, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights could monitor the situation of governmental and societal restrictions on religious freedom and report annually to the Human Rights Council and there could be further study of Article 20 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights such as the workshops, which had been a good start.

DINESH BHATTARAI (Nepal), said that the Human Rights Council had demonstrated its strength and willingness as an inter-governmental body to address human rights situations and work for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights. Nepal remained committed to making the Human Rights Council more effective, efficient and credible in the days to come. Nepal was happy to note that the review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council as mandated by General Assembly resolution 60/251 in order to make it more responsive and effective tool in preserving all human rights was moving smoothly. Nepal supported the initiatives undertaken by the President in the review exercise and they were of the view that the basic principles as enshrined in the Institutional Building Package should be preserved and any outcome of the review should be based on consensus. Nepal considered that all human rights were universal, indivisible, interrelated interdependent and mutually reinforcing and that there were indissoluble linkages among human rights security, democracy and development. They believed that building national democratic institutions were vital to their sustainability. Nepal said it was in the midst of a democratic transformation following the end of a decade long armed conflict. Nepal remained committed to the protection and promotion of the human rights of all its citizens irrespective of their caste, race, sex, ethnic origin, language, religion or ideological conviction.

MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), said that the Council had the capacity it needed to face the challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights. There was a need to understand the direction in which the international community was moving and where the milestones in this process were. It was becoming more obvious that more needed to be done to promote economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. Also, the Council must be at the forefront of the efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Belarus did not wish to politicize the issue of human rights and believed that the Council had the capacity to overcome the things of the past. In that sense, Belarus welcomed the implementation of measures agreed to in the Review Outcome Document. The Human Rights Council and the General Assembly had frequently considered the application of unilateral coercive measures and condemned their use. However, those measures were still applied and Belarus was of the opinion that they were in contravention with international law and hampered people’s right to development. The Council must stick to a principled position of condemning such measures, Belarus concluded.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), said that this session had taken place under difficult conditions for the expansion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Moroccan Government had undertaken a number of actions to extend human rights, including organizing workshops to determine how national institutions might better implement human rights, appointing an Economic and Social Council as a body under the constitution to provide fresh impetus for national reform and strengthening legislation on money laundering. There were still areas to work on including reviewing the penal legislation to bring it up to international standards and combating corruption. To this end, in 2011 the country would host the fourth meeting on the United Nations Convention to Combat Corruption. In 2010 Morocco hosted a Francophile forum on human rights and went through a Universal Periodic Review and continued to try to find a solution for Western Sahara. Morocco would encourage cooperation with the Committee for Missing Persons and had invited the expert to visit the country. An important issue for the Council should be the resumption of negotiations on the Occupied Arab Territories that would guarantee the Palestinians the establishment of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.

DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia), said that Indonesia was deeply concerned with the human rights situation in Libya, as they had stated in their statement during the fifteenth Special Session on the human rights situation in the country. Without presuming to interfere in a matter which concerned first and foremost the Libyan Government and people, Indonesia nevertheless joined the international community in urging the authorities to respect the voice of the people and to refrain from excessive use of brute force against innocent civilians and to do the utmost to prevent further bloodshed. Indonesia called on authorities to address the legitimate desire of the population for a more democratic and just society through peaceful dialogue and conciliation. On the national human rights agenda, Indonesia continued to make progress in strengthening legal and institutional frameworks as well as in raising human rights awareness among the people. Secondly, the Indonesian Government had signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance during the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly last September. They were currently working on the preparation of the ratification on this convention. In the regional sphere, Indonesia remained deeply committed to the promotion of human rights. As a newly-established mechanism, Commissioners of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights were working hard to build a workable format which also conformed to the mandate of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Charter.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India), said that extraordinary events were unfolding around the world. Their roots were in local socio-economic conditions, but also in geopolitics and this might pose problems for multilateralism, both in testing limits and trying to break fresh ground. This held true for the Human Rights Council, United Nations Security Council and General Assembly. India echoed the High Commissioner’s emphasis on continued vigilance, the consolidation of the gains made through rebuilding institutions of governance and on the collective responsibility to extend support. The formal task of reviewing the Council was drawing near and India welcomed the adoption of the outcome document which would serve to further enhance the Council’s functioning. India believed that the deliberations during the review, even though they could not garner consensus on some thought-provoking ideas, had provided a stimulating discussion that should guide the Council as it went along. India remained firmly wedded to the fundamental idea of expanding liberal space for human growth and empowerment.

EVAN P. GARCIA (Philippines), said that recent events in the world had shown the importance of human rights and their link to the desires of peoples across the world to determine their own destinies. The Council had been responsive to these events and the Philippines would like to see the Council extend a helping hand to countries which needed it. In the Council, the Philippines had focused on combating human trafficking through the application of a human rights-based approach and together with Germany had presented a draft resolution to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, at the next session of the Council in June this year. The Philippines had been engaged in efforts to strengthen the promotion and protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families and would like to see a more informed, de-politicized and comprehensive discussion on migration and human rights emerge at the international level and would work closely with concerned delegations and civil society stakeholders for wider ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. The Government also would like the Council to continue to focus on the human rights of climate change. Recent accomplishments of the Government had been the new Magna Carta of Women, a bill that promoted gender mainstreaming and the empowerment of women and their equal access to resources and development, the signing of the implementing rules and regulations of the anti-torture law and the creation of a special task force in the Department of Justice to review unresolved cases relating to the violations of human rights.

SIMON MADJUMO MARUTA (Namibia), said that Namibia’s human rights record was reviewed in January of this year under the Universal Periodic Review and it had accepted over 75 per cent of the recommendations. The Universal Periodic Review was an opportunity for their Government to renew its commitment to combating violence against women, strengthening their criminal justice system and raising the standard of living of formerly marginalized groups in Namibia. People of African descent continued to be subjected to discrimination in many countries and Members of the Council had to set an example in combating all forms of racism and xenophobia against them and giving them access to all services. Racism could not to be tolerated and all governments had a responsibility to protect citizens and foreigners within their jurisdictions to enable them to enjoy all human rights as provided for in the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. Namibia said that 2011 was the International Year for People of African Descent, and the Council should ensure that the provisions provided in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action were adhered to and implemented. Namibia’s delegation urged the international community to allocate the necessary resources in this regard.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates), said that human rights activities in the United Arab Emirates had been carried out in consultation with civil society enabling the government to carry out its tasks in a transparent and accountable manner. The Universal Periodic Review and Special Procedures were fundamental mechanisms of the Human Rights Council and must be maintained. The Council was now called upon to respond to all human rights violations and to tackle ongoing concerns such as racism, religious freedoms and the right to development. The High Commissioner for Human Rights had visited the Emirates last year and was accompanied by a delegation to exchange views and reflect on challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights. The United Arab Emirates had decided to apply for membership in the Council for the period 2012 to 2015 and hoped its candidacy would receive full support. A national Commission had been established to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review that the United Arab Emirates had undergone in 2008. The Emirates deeply regretted the drama and suffering in Libya and called upon the international community to relieve suffering of the people in this country. The Emirates was concerned about the inability of the international community to establish peace in this region and for turning a deaf ear to demands of the oppressed population.

CARLOS ROBELO RAFFONE (Nicaragua), said that the fight for peace and the establishment of a just international order had always been a priority for Nicaragua. Imperialism yesterday struck a blow against this by not helping a needy brother. The United Nations should not continue to promote double standards, as evidenced in the makeup of the Security Council, and despite Nicaragua’s concerns about the suspension of Libya, the Government did not oppose it and the Government now had a deep concern for the expressions of invasion and occupation made by a brother from the south yesterday. A country that had been a member of this Council should not use force. Nicaragua had been pleased to see the vote of confidence of the international community in electing Nicaragua as the continued leader of the next session of the Council.

MARION VERNESE WILLIAMS (Barbados), said that the respect for human rights, the promotion of justice and the responsibility to protect, were all basic tenets to which Barbados adhered. Every government had the responsibility to protect and defend its citizens; however, when guardians of such rights became the perpetrators of abuses, this Council had to act decisively. Barbados’s delegation therefore commended the Council’s unequivocal condemnation of the violation of human rights currently taking place in Libya. Barbados supported the call by this Council for the need to protect the right to dissent, and the Council’s commitment to investigate human rights violations. Barbados was of the view that the promotion and protection of human rights was at the very heart of the mission of the United Nations of which they were a part. History and events unfolding showed that popular demands for freedom and basic rights were often symptomatic of broader social and economic injustices. However, the international community had to be prepared to accept that efforts to meet demands for assistance could lead to resentment among those very persons who were beneficiaries of that assistance. Finally, as the sixteenth session of the Council got underway the international community was reminded that the mandate of this body in examining the broad spectrum of matters relating to the disadvantaged constituted an important part of the mission of the United Nations.

WALID ABU-HAYA (Israel), said that without doubt the Middle East was now in a historic period of transition, but that it was too soon to predict its outcome. The nations of the Middle East would choose their paths and that must come from within. As a long-standing democracy, Israel supported the forces that promoted freedom, progress and peace in the hope that the changes seen today would lead to strengthened human rights tomorrow. The people’s uprising highlighted that the Arab-Israeli conflict was not the primary issue facing the region. Israel sought a solution that would reconcile the Palestinians’ legitimate aspiration for statehood with Israel’s need for security and recognition. Turning to the situation in Libya, Israel said that the suspension of this country from the Human Rights Council was only the first step and the Council must continue to closely monitor the situation. Israel said that the situation in Iran required concrete action by the Council to ensure that Iran ended its policy of suppressing the rights of its people. Israel categorically rejected the review outcome document and said that maintaining the status quo of the agenda further discredited the work of the Council and created a hierarchy in the human rights of peoples.

ZALMAI AZIZ (Afghanistan), said that, in the words of Ludwig Erhard, a former German Chancellor, “compromise was the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believed that he had the biggest piece.” Afghanistan stated that the skills of the President of the Council had been demonstrated by the job of reconciling the Council’s inconsistent thoughts through expertly dividing the cake. The government should be the servant and not the master of the people and should be responsible for safeguarding the human rights of its citizens. Afghanistan supported effective means to strengthen human rights bodies to ensure protection of these rights. Any approach to human rights issues that was not motivated by a sincere desire to protect these rights, but only to wage a political campaign, should not be justified.

FLORENCE SIMBIRI JAOKO (International Coordinating Committee of Nations Institutions), said that this session was occurring at a time when people in parts of North Africa and the Middle East were courageously calling for democracy, for human rights, for jobs, and for a decent life for themselves and their families. They were demonstrating that human rights were vital to peace, security and sustainable development everywhere. They joined with their colleagues, national human rights institutions in the Arab world, who were calling for the establishment of effective investigation and monitoring mechanisms, and political and legislative reforms that aimed at protecting and promoting human rights and the rule of law. They were at a time of continuing global economic recession. In many places the impact of the economic crisis was halting or reversing human rights and development gains hardly won in previous years. Today the international community recognized that international and national legal protections were necessary, but not sufficient to make a real difference in people’s daily lives. They knew now that those international standards had to not only be ratified and incorporated into national law, they had to be applied daily through the development of policies and the delivery of services.

MERVAT RISHMAWI, of Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, said she had been active in the promotion and protection of human rights for over 20 years and congratulated the Council on the creation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of association at its last session. Violations of this right were among the root causes of recent unrest in the Arab world. Governments reacted with deadly force to a wave of popular peaceful protests and in some of the countries the freedom of civilians to continue to protest would be crucial to ensuring a smooth and genuine transition to democratic rule. Violations of the right to assembly and association had been increasing on the global level, often under the pretext of combating terrorism. The United Nations and this Council had a responsibility to move those rights to the forefront of the priority agenda and a good place to start would be to hold a high-level panel discussion within the Council or to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an expert meeting on the freedom of association and assembly.

MARY JANE REAL, a woman’s human rights advocate speaking in her personal capacity, stated that a women and gender perspective should be integrated into the Council’s work. Human rights defenders had been key to seeking justice for the rights of the disappeared in the Middle East and yet they had been subject to violence and intimidation. The Working Report on the Special Rapporteur had been welcomed and States should protect female human rights workers and defenders who had been targeted even by governments. The Council should develop new tools to aid human rights defenders on the ground, deepening the work of the special procedures on gender. The Under Secretary-General of Women from the Commission on the Status of Women said that women had been under-represented as most of the Special Rapporteur’s had been men. Member States should ratify the convention on displaced persons.

ALEXIS CORTHAY, of Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), expressed concern about the food crisis that the world was experiencing and said that there were general human rights violations, especially against those working in rural areas, rural workers and farmers in particular. Mr. Corthay said that the international community witnessed a global phenomenon of land snatch and rural workers often became landless or they remained with a small portion of land. The international community saw discrimination of people working in rural areas and this discrimination led to arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings. Mr. Corthay said that at the sixteenth session the Human Rights Council would take up two studies: on discrimination in the context of the right to food and the preliminary study on the advancement of persons in rural areas. These studies would be important. The improvement of the condition of producers of food went hand in hand with the improvement of the food situation in the world. It was their hope that this session would be a constructive process for the civil societies they represented, particularly rural people and farmers.

PEPE JULIAN ONZIEMA, of International Service for Human Rights, said that the real challenge lay in translating the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into action. Gross human rights violations had been reported around the world and in Africa there was a disturbing trend where lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons were marginalised through tougher legislation seeking to deny them the space to live and contribute to the social and economic development of the continent as equal partners. Media openly called for their death and women who challenged social and gender norms faced punitive rape. The speaker encouraged all States to support the cross-regional joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity to be presented at this Council session. The struggle for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons’ rights was a part of the broader struggle for equal worth and dignity of every human being.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record