Human Rights Council adopts 10 resolutions on safe drinking water, preventable maternal mortality and use of mercenaries

MORNING

27 September 2012

Adopts Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Asks Advisory Committee to Finalize Study on Traditional Values and Human Rights

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted 10 resolutions in which it adopted Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights and asked the Advisory Committee to finalize the study on traditional values and human rights. Other resolutions dealt with safe drinking water and sanitation, enforced or involuntary disappearances, dissemination of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, the right to truth, the use of mercenaries, the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and human rights and international solidarity.

At the beginning of the meeting, Laura Lasserre Dupuy, President of the Human Rights Council, said that the Council had examined in closed meeting under its Complaints Procedure the human rights situation in Eritrea and the situation of trade unions and human rights defenders in Iraq. The Council had decided to discontinue reviewing the human rights situation in Eritrea under it confidential procedure in order to take up the open procedure and would make public the confidential resolution on Eritrea this morning. The Council also decided to discontinue the consideration of the situation of trade unions and human rights defenders in Iraq.

In a resolution, the Council decided to adopt the Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights and to transmit them to the General Assembly for its consideration, and encouraged all to consider those Guiding Principles in the formulation and implementation of their policies and measures concerning persons affected by extreme poverty.

Concerning the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind, the Council adopted with a vote of 25 in favour, 15 against and 7 abstentions a resolution in which it decided to accord the Advisory Committee additional time to finalize the study.

In the resolution on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, the Council expressed deep concern about the negative impact of discrimination, marginalization and stigmatization on the full enjoyment of this right and called upon States to prioritize funding for safe drinking water and sanitation and to monitor the affordability of safe drinking water and sanitation.

Regarding enforced or involuntary disappearances, the Council requested the United Nations Secretary-General and the High Commissioner to continue their intensive efforts to assist States in becoming parties to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and urged all States to promote and give full effect to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

In the resolution regarding business and the human rights agenda, the Council
requested the Secretary-General to undertake a feasibility study to explore the establishment of a global fund to enhance the capacity of stakeholders to advance the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and decided to organize a panel discussion at the twenty-second or twenty-third session of the Human Rights Council to discuss strategies for advancing the business and human rights agenda by the United Nations system.

On preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights, the Council requested all States to renew their commitment to eliminate preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, and to give renewed emphasis to those initiatives in their development partnerships and cooperation arrangements. The Council requested the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a report on how the technical guidance has been applied, to be presented to the Council at its twenty-seventh session.

In its resolution on the right to the truth, the Council welcomed the establishment of specific judicial mechanisms in several States and encouraged others to consider establishing such mechanisms to investigate gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. The Council requested the Office of the High Commissioner to collect information on good practices in the establishment, preservation and provision of access to national archives on human rights and to make that information publically available in an online database.

Concerning the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Council adopted a resolution with a vote of 34 in favour, 12 against and 1 abstention, in which it requested the Working Group on the use of mercenaries to continue its work on the strengthening of the international legal framework on the use of mercenaries and requested the Office of the High Commissioner to publicize the adverse effects of the activities of mercenaries and private companies on the right of peoples to self-determination.

The Council adopted a resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order with a vote of 31 in favour, 12 against and 4 abstentions, in which it requested the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order to submit to the Human Rights Council, at its twenty-fourth session, a report on the implementation of the present resolution.

On human rights and international solidarity, the Council adopted a resolution with a vote of 35 in favour, 12 against and no abstentions in which it urged the international community to consider urgently concrete measures to promote and consolidate international assistance to developing countries in their development endeavours and requested the Independent Expert to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-third session.

Introducing resolutions were Spain, Germany, Russia, France, Norway, Burkina Faso, Colombia, New Zealand, Argentina and Cuba.

Speaking in general comments were China, India, United States, Guatemala and Peru.

Ecuador, United States, Norway, Maldives, Austria on behalf of the European Union, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, Guatemala, India, Saudi Arabia in a joint statement and Mauritania spoke in explanation of the vote before or after the vote.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will continue to take action on decisions and resolutions.

Statement by President of the Council Concerning the Complaints Procedure

LAURA LASSERRE DUPUY, President of the Human Rights Council, said that the Council had examined in closed meeting under its Complaints Procedure the human rights situation in Eritrea and the situation of trade unions and of human rights defenders in Iraq. The Council had decided to discontinue reviewing the human rights situation in Eritrea under it confidential procedure in order to take up the open procedure and would make public the confidential resolution on Eritrea this morning. The Council also decided to discontinue the consideration of the situation of trade unions and human rights defenders in Iraq.

Action on Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development

Action on Resolution on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L1) regarding the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses deep concern about the negative impact of discrimination, marginalization and stigmatization on the full enjoyment of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; calls upon States to prioritize in an appropriate way funding for safe drinking water and sanitation, and to monitor the affordability of safe drinking water and sanitation in order to determine whether specific measures are needed to ensure that household contributions are and remain affordable; encouragesthe Special Rapporteur to continue to make contributions to the discussions on the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015, in particular on the integration of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; encourages all Governments to continue to respond favourably to requests by the Special Rapporteur for visits and information; and requests the Special Rapporteur to continue to report, on an annual basis, to the Human Rights Council and to submit an annual report to the General Assembly.

Spain, introducing draft resolution L1, said that Spain and Germany were honoured to jointly present the new resolution on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. The resolution focused on the important aspect of financing, which was indispensable for the implementation of this human right. They had based themselves on the second report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, presented in October 2011 before the United Nations General Assembly. Spain and Germany considered that financing was a key factor not only in times of financial crisis, and so the resolution tackled the third pillar of the process of implementing the right following the resolution on the role of non-State actors of 2010. Channelling existing resources towards clear objectives and greater budgetary transparency and coordination would assist in a more effective implementation. Three aspects were essential, namely prioritising resources, increasing the percentage of international assistance spent on access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and guaranteeing accessibility of safe drinking water and sanitation for all households.

Germany, also introducing the draft resolution L.1, said that much had been achieved regarding the implementation of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. There had been important developments regarding this human right in the past year. Germany was especially content to see that an international consensus evolved around the human right to safe drinking water in the Rio+20 outcome document. The resolution was the result of numerous consultations with all delegations and stakeholders. Germany and Spain had tried to accommodate everybody’s concerns in order to maintain the consensus on this important issue and hoped that the resolution could be adopted by consensus.

Ecuador, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, associated itself with the consensus, and said that it considered water as a fundamental human rights as part of a good living system and of the right to health. The Human Rights Council adopted a similar resolution during its fifteenth session, which stated that the human right to safe drinking of water was associated with the right of adequate standards of living. It was an essential human right, equally important to all other human rights. All human rights were interdependent and had no hierarchy among one another.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, was pleased to join the consensus on that resolution, which highlighted the global issue of universal access to water and sanitation without discrimination. The United States had put a lot of resources in its commitment to improve water security around the world. The United States would read that resolution in accordance with its September 2010 statement before the Human Rights Council. That resolution should be read in the broadest way possible.

Action on Resolution on Promoting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms through a Better Understanding of Traditional Values of Humankind: Best Practices

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L2) regarding the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind: best practices, adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, 15 against and 7 abstentions, the Council reaffirms that a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values shared by all humanity and embodied in universal human rights instruments contributes to promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide; recalls the important role of family, community, society and educational institutions in upholding and transmitting these values; stresses that human rights derive from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person; notes that traditional values can be practically applied, particularly in human rights education; takes note of recommendation 9/4 of the Advisory Committee on the progress of work on a study on how a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values of dignity, freedom and responsibility can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights, and decides to accord it additional time to finalize the study; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to collect information from the United Nations Member States and other relevant stakeholders on the best practices of applying traditional values while promoting and protecting human rights and upholding human dignity.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (25):Angola, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, and Uganda.

Against (15):Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and United States.

Abstentions (7):Benin, Chile, Guatemala, Nigeria, Peru, Republic of Moldova, and Uruguay.

Russia, introducing draft resolution L.2, said that the text was based on all the provisions of the United Nations Charter and instruments of human rights, and particularly noted human rights as the source of human dignity, and that States had to fulfil their obligations to promote the universal respect and observance of fundamental freedoms for all. Unfortunately the Advisory Committee of the Council had not been able to prepare a report because of the lack of time. Therefore the draft resolution contained an instruction to the Advisory Committee to complete this work. Furthermore, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was instructed to collect information on examples of positive practice and submit this information to the Council. The position of a number of countries that responded with rejection, even some aggression, was a surprise. Human rights had to serve as an instrument for unification and not division of the Council and there should be a spirit of partnership. No single country or group of countries should monopolise norms in the area of human rights. Russia, on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution, called on all Members of the Council to support the initiative and vote in favour.

Norway, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.2, said that the draft resolution failed to recognise that so-called traditional values could also be used to justify human rights violations and abuses. Traditions and values changed over time and, while some of them were in accordance with human rights, some where not. There was no internationally agreed definition on what traditional values meant. In fact, traditional values could also undermine the human rights of some groups, such as in the case of slavery and servitude, violence against women, female genital mutilation, and violence against vulnerable groups. For these reasons, Norway called for a vote on the draft resolution.

Maldives, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.2, said it believed in the universality of human rights, beyond cultures and civilisations. Human rights were a fundamental part of human beings regardless of where they lived. Maldives would not accept any moves towards relativism in human rights or anything that would suggest that human rights were anything but universal and interrelated.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.2, warned that the concept of traditional values that was not anchored in international law undermined the principles of international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration, and could have negative effects on the rights of women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, and other minority groups. For this reason the United States would vote against the draft resolution. There was no internationally agreed definition on the meaning of traditional values and, as the Advisory Committee recognised, this concept could be used to justify human rights abuses. The draft resolution selectively quoted from the report of the Advisory Committee and did not take into account some of its key elements, such as references to the fact that some human rights derived from traditional values and that in some cases those profiting from the status quo were more likely to appeal to tradition.

Austria, in an explanation of the vote before the vote and on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union continuously stressed that there was no agreed upon definition of traditional values nor of its link with human rights. The vagueness and subjectivity of the notion of traditional values could be used to undermine human rights and justify human rights violations, and went against the principle that human rights were the same everywhere and at all times. Some traditional values clearly conflicted with human rights. That had been underlined by United Nations treaty bodies and by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. As long as the resolution would not refer to human rights violations based on traditional values, the European Union would oppose it. The European Union Member States who were members of the Council would vote against the resolution.

Chile, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that nothing could relativise fundamental human rights, as acknowledged in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. States were bound to promote and protect all human rights and to ensure that traditional values in opposition with human rights were eradicated. Chile was concerned that the concept of traditional values was not clearly defined and could therefore lead to human rights violations. The resolution before the Council today did not contribute to address human rights violations and to eradicate traditional values that were against human rights. Chile would abstain on the resolution, and would only re-evaluate its position when the notion of traditional values would be defined more clearly and in a way that would not be in opposition with the universality of human rights.

Uruguay, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the international community should treat human rights comprehensively and in a just and equitable manner, noting their universality and indivisibility. It was clear that States were duty-bound to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. This resolution, in Uruguay’s opinion, had two problems. Editorially, it did not take expressed account of the problem solved in resolution 16/03, entrusting the Council’s Advisory Committee with a study on the matter. This study had not yet been finalised. From a substantive point, the preliminary report of the Advisory Committee underscored that there was no agreed definition of the term traditional values of humanity. Uruguay would abstain in the vote.

Peru, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the debate on the relation between traditional values of humanity and human rights generated a variety of opinions partly because of a lack of definitions. Values and traditions were varied and complex. While some were compatible with human rights, others were clearly in conflict with or undermined them. It was necessary to continue to give thought to the matter, in order to define the negative and positive effects of traditional values in effectively implementing all human rights, and Peru considered that the Advisory Committee could make an important contribution in that connection. Nobody could invoke cultural diversity and traditional values to violate human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by international law.

Guatemala, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.2, reiterated its commitment to the universality of human rights. This represented a common and shared vision of human rights. Guatemala could not accept any kind of relativism and was concerned that the issue behind the draft resolution would divide the Council and the Advisory Committee, which had noted that it would continue to work on this topic and would report to the Council in 2013. Such a division would not contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights around the world. Guatemala would abstain until a full report of the Advisory Committee was received and would not accept any concept that would undermine the universality of human rights or relativize their implementation.

China, in a general comment on draft resolution L.2, regretted that the Secretariat did not notice China in time to make a general comment and requested that the statement would be kept in the record as part of the general discussion. China reiterated the importance of respecting the universality of human rights, and of recognising the different cultures, religious beliefs, and history of each country. One model of human rights could not be said to be better than others and the international community should respect the right of each country to respect human rights according to their specific cultural, historical and religious backgrounds. China believed that in order to better understand traditional values of humankind, education in traditional values was valuable and that efforts to improve the awareness of the general public concerning traditional values would be conducive to the promotion and protection of human rights. Therefore China would vote in favour of the draft resolution.

Action on Resolution on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L5) regarding enforced or involuntary disappearances, adopted as orally revised, the Council calls upon all States that have not yet signed, ratified or acceded to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance to consider doing so as a matter of priority; requests the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner to continue their intensive efforts to assist States in becoming parties to the Convention; urges all States to promote and give full effect to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances; urges States to cooperate with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to help it carry out its mandate effectively; calls upon States to prevent the occurrence of enforced disappearances, to work to eradicate the culture of impunity for the perpetrators of enforced disappearances, to continue their efforts to elucidate the fate of disappeared persons, to take steps to provide adequate protection to witnesses of enforced or involuntary disappearances, and to address the specific needs of the families of disappeared persons; decides to continue consideration of the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances in accordance with its programme of work.

France, introducing on behalf of France, Argentina, Japan and Morocco resolution L.5 on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said that the resolution commended the entry into force of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances as well as the work undertaken by the Committee monitoring its implementation. 2012 marked the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on Enforced Disappearances, which was endorsed in the resolution. The resolution urged all States to take measures to prevent and punish enforced disappearances, and introduced several new elements compared to previous resolutions on that matter. In order to enable victims to exercise their right to the truth, States were encouraged to make public archives related to enforced disappearances, and to use forensic genetics to identify victims when corpses were found. States were also encouraged to address the lack of access to justice for the families of victims of enforced disappearances. Finally, the resolution called for the strengthening of the cooperation among States and civil society organizations. The resolution had been drafted in consultation with all Member States of the Council, and the co-sponsors hoped that the Council would approve it by consensus.

India, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, noted that the draft resolution was likely to be adopted by consensus. India was willing to go along with this consensus, but wished its suggestions had been taken on board, and suggested oral amendments to the text.

Action on Resolution on the Contribution of the United Nations System as a Whole to the Advancement of the Business and Human Rights Agenda and the Dissemination and Implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L14) regarding business and the human rights agenda, adopted without a vote, the Council underscores the need to adopt a coordinated strategic approach to ensure integration of the business and human rights agenda, particularly the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, into all relevant aspects of the work of the United Nations system; encourages all relevant entities of the United Nations system to develop guidance and training relating to the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles for Governments, business enterprises and civil society; recognizes the work done by the Global Compact for the business sector and concerning the Guiding Principles; requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council at its twenty-sixth session on the challenges, strategies and developments with regard to the implementation of the present resolution by the United Nations system, and to make concrete recommendations for action; also requests the Secretary-General to undertake a feasibility study to explore the establishment of a global fund to enhance the capacity of stakeholders to advance the implementation of the Guiding Principles, to be presented to the Human Rights Council no later than June 2014; and decides to organize a panel discussion at the twenty-second or twenty-third session of the Human Rights Council to discuss strategies for advancing the business and human rights agenda by the United Nations system.

Norway, introducing draft resolution L.14/Rev.1, said that in 2011 the Council had endorsed the United Nations Guiding Principles for Businesses and Human Rights, which provided both States and business enterprises with concrete and practical guidance on how to increase protection from, and remedy, business-related human rights harm and requested the Secretary-General to report on this issue. The draft resolution sought to support many of the recommendations by the Secretary-General, based on the important role that the United Nations system could play through capacity building efforts directed at Governments, business enterprises, civil society and other stakeholders. Norway believed that the resolution was part of the fact-based and incremental approach, and it underscored the need for a coordinated strategic approach to ensuring integration of the business and human rights agenda in the United Nations, underlining the important role relevant to United Nations entities and mechanisms in supporting dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles.

India, in a general comment, said that India refrained from being a co-sponsor because the resolution went beyond previous texts on that matter. Furthermore, the feasibility study on the implementation of the Guiding Principles was not acceptable to India.

United States was pleased to co-sponsor the resolution, and said that it was important that individuals were protected from misconduct by States and transnational corporations. The United States attached great importance to States’ obligation to protect and to the right to remedy. The United States supported the integration of the Guiding Principles into the United Nations system where appropriate.

Ecuador, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, associated itself with the consensus on this resolution, as the United Nations should continue to develop international binding standards on international companies. The draft resolution did not go into detail of the fundamental issue that gave rise to the mandate, the setting up of an appropriate and binding international framework for business transactions and human rights.

Action on Resolution on Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L10) preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council requests all States to renew their commitment to eliminate preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, including through the allocation of resources and the necessary information and health services addressing the sexual and reproductive health of women and girls. The Council also requests States to give renewed emphasis to maternal mortality and morbidity initiatives in their development partnerships and cooperation arrangements. It calls upon United Nation agencies to provide technical cooperation and assistance to States to support the implementation of the technical guidance. Finally, the Council requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a report on how the technical guidance has been applied, to be presented to the Council at its twenty-seventh session, and requests the Secretary-General to transmit the technical guidance to the General Assembly as a contribution to the review of the realization of the Millennium Development Goals.

Burkina Faso, introducing draft resolution L.10, said that this draft resolution was supported by 82 sponsors and recalled resolution 18/2 of the Council which had been supported by a broad consensus and called on the High Commissioner to elaborate technical guidance for the implementation of policies and programmes for the reduction of avoidable maternal mortality and morbidity. The resolution saluted the establishment of this guidance and called on States and different actors to use it appropriately. The draft resolution requested the High Commissioner to elaborate a report concerning ways in which this guidance could be used by States and other actors. Major efforts had to be made in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goal regarding maternal mortality and morbidity by 2015. Burkina Faso, Colombia and New Zealand were happy to submit this draft to find ways to use the technical guidance in different policies and programmes to combat maternal mortality and morbidity. The right to life was essential. Defending the right to life and the fight against maternal mortality and morbidity constituted a universal duty and the delegation called on the Council to adopt this resolution by consensus.

Colombia, also introducing the draft resolution, called on all Member States of the Council to adopt it with consensus. The draft resolution focused on technical guides to promote a human rights based approach to maternal mortality, and recognized those guides as a useful tool for States to address that important subject. The resolution would contribute to the shared goal to eradicate maternal mortality and morbidity.

New Zealand, also introducing the draft resolution, said that since 2009 it had worked closely with cross-regional partners in the Council to establish a normative basis for a human rights approach to reducing maternal mortality and morbidity. It was a practical and useful voluntary tool, to help those on the ground to address the unacceptably high rate of women dying in pregnancy or childbirth. New Zealand saw the resolution as a contribution to technical guidance and as a practical tool in the fight for the rights of women, and as a practical example of how the Council could do more to mainstream human rights across the United Nations system. Maternal mortality and morbidity was a challenge in all regions in the world and New Zealand firmly believed the Council could and must contribute towards reducing the unacceptably high death rate.

Guatemala, in a general comment, said that it was alarmed at the high rate of maternal mortality around the world. This issue needed to be addressed through new and more committed actions by States. Guatemala therefore continued to co-sponsor the resolution and hoped that it would be adopted by consensus. The guidance referred to in the resolution did not mean that it was creating new obligations or rights.

Saudi Arabia, in a joint explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the States joining the statement were committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goal on maternal health. With that view, they had engaged positively with the sponsors to try to reach a consensual text. They regretted however that no agreement could be reached. The resolution was focused on a document that had never been discussed or agreed upon by States. The guidance promoted new rights not defined in international human rights instruments, such as sexual and reproductive health rights. There was no international consensus on sexual rights. A human rights-based approach to maternal mortality had to respect States’ sovereignty. Saudi Arabia regretted that the co-sponsors did not take the views of all States into consideration, and said that the States co-signing this joint declaration would dissociate themselves from operative paragraphs 4 and 8 of the resolution, and would therefore not be bound by their content.

Mauritania, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.10, withdrew its co-sponsorship of resolution L.10 but reiterated its solidarity with the consensus that would prevail in the Council.

Action on Resolution on the Right to Truth

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L16) regarding the right to truth, adopted without a vote, the Council welcomes the establishment in several States of specific judicial mechanisms such as truth and reconciliation commissions; encourages the States concerned to disseminate and implement the recommendations of such mechanisms; encourages other States to consider establishing specific judicial mechanisms to investigate gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law; calls upon States to work in cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence in accordance with his mandate, including by extending invitations to the Special Rapporteur; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to invite Member States, United Nations organs, intergovernmental organizations, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations to provide information on good practices in the establishment, preservation and provision of access to national archives on human rights, and to make the information received publically available in an online database; and decides to consider this matter at its twenty-seventh session under the same agenda item, or at the corresponding session in conformity with its annual programme of work.

Argentina, introducing the draft resolution L.16, said that the initiative introduced today continued to deal with this important right. It was discussed in several information meetings and updated during events that had taken place on the matter since the last resolution, such as the entry into force of the Convention on Enforced Disappearances. It focused on the issue of human rights archives on this occasion, which was important so that victims could enjoy the right to truth and reparations. The resolution encouraged States that had not yet done so to establish a national policy for archives, and that legislation was passed to preserve documentary legacies of the nation. It also requested the Office of the High Commissioner to call upon States, organizations, and all other parties concern to provide information on best practices, so they could be stored on and form a database on the Office’s website.

Action on Resolution on the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L17) regarding the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, adopted by a vote of 34 in favour, 12 against and 1 abstention, the Council urges all States to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories are not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training, protection and transit of mercenaries for the planning of activities designed to impede the right to self-determination; encourages States that import services by private companies to establish regulatory national mechanisms in order to ensure that such services neither impede the enjoyment of human rights nor violate human rights in the recipient country; calls upon all States to become parties to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries; requests the Working Group on the use of mercenaries to continue its work on the strengthening of the international legal framework on the use of mercenaries and to continue to identify trends regarding mercenaries and their impact on human rights; and reiterates its requests to the Office of the High Commissioner to publicize the adverse effects of the activities of mercenaries and private companies on the right of peoples to self-determination.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (34):Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, and Uruguay.

Against (12):Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and United States.

Abstentions (1): Mexico.

Cuba, presenting draft resolution L.17 on the use of mercenaries as a mean of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right to self-determination, said the resolution identified new trends and aspects of mercenaries’ activities that violated human rights. The resolution reaffirmed the importance of the Working Group on mercenaries, and the importance that the Working Group studied the need for an international binding instrument on mercenaries. Through the adoption of that resolution, the Human Rights Council would reiterate its commitment to combat human rights violations committed by mercenaries.

United States, speaking in a general comment on draft resolution L.17, said that its concerns regarding the draft resolution were known and longstanding. The United States would request a vote and would vote against the draft resolution.

Austria, on behalf of the European Union, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.17, said that their objections were longstanding and well-known and, therefore, the European Union Member States who were members of the Council would vote against the draft resolution.

Action on Resolution on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L18) regarding the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 12 against and 4 abstentions, the Council calls upon all Member States to fulfill their commitment expressed during the World Conference against Racism in Durban to maximize the benefits of globalization; urges all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; urges States to continue their efforts, through enhanced international cooperation, towards the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; calls upon all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order in the discharge of his mandate; and requests the Independent Expert to submit to the Human Rights Council, at its twenty-fourth session, a report on the implementation of the present resolution, with particular emphasis on the fostering of full, equitable and effective participation, including the obstacles to that aim and possible measures to overcome them.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, and Uruguay.

Against (12): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and United States.

Abstentions (4): Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru.

Cuba, introducing the draft resolution L.18, said that the theme was one of daily increasing importance. The countries in the South suffered from the distortions of a global order which excluded their legitimate interests. Populations were victims of the exhaustion of the neo-liberal economic model and the social and political consequences were felt on all continents. It regretted that developed countries did not truly wish to be involved in the negotiation process in this resolution and merely participated to express their opposition. Those countries were the only ones that did not give support to the initiative. A just, democratic and equitable international order was an essential condition for efforts to reach desired results.

Austria, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union Member States who are members of the Council, said that the promotion of democracy and the rule of law was essential and constituted an integral part of the European Union’s foreign policy. However, the scope of the resolution went far beyond the mandate of the Human Rights Council. The European Union regretted that no reference to the Independent Expert had been included in the resolution. The European Union could not support the resolution. The European Union would call for a vote and vote against the draft resolution.

Action on a Resolution on Human Rights and International Solidarity

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L.19) on human rights and international solidarity, adopted by a vote of 35 in favour, 12 against and no abstentions as orally revised, the Council urges the international community to consider urgently concrete measures to promote and consolidate international assistance to developing countries in their development endeavours and for the promotion of conditions conducive to the full realization of all human rights; requests all States, United Nations agencies, other relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations to mainstream the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity into their activities, and to cooperate with the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity in her mandate, to supply all necessary information requested by her and to give serious consideration to responding favourably to her requests to visit their country to enable her to fulfil her mandate effectively; requests the Independent Expert to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-third session; decides to continue its examination of this issue at its twenty-third session under the same agenda item.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (35): Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda and Uruguay.

Against (12): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and United States.

Abstentions (0):

Cuba, introducing draft resolution L.19, said that a draft resolution on international solidarity had been submitted year after year with the support of several members of the Council. International solidarity was of extreme strategic importance in the current world and, in particular for developing countries. These were the most affected by the lack of resources and technology, the impact of the current crisis and the consequences of an unjust and unequal international order. In the context of programmes for the promotion and protection of human rights, international cooperation was essential to support national efforts. The proposed draft was in agreement with these aims and aimed to continue to promote international solidarity and cooperation. The current draft had many co-sponsors and the support of various sectors of civil society and the approach consisted not of punitive monitoring but a stimulus to international cooperation and solidarity, and to genuine dialogue to which Cuba and the co-sponsors were firmly committed.

Austria, on behalf of the European Union, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L. 19, said that the European Union attached great importance to international solidarity and, as attested by its important contributions to other countries, its members demonstrated their commitment to solidarity on a daily basis, in particular in relation to efforts for the eradication of poverty and sustainable development. It was the primary responsibility of States to protect the human rights of individuals in their territory, despite international solidarity and cooperation. Austria doubted that the principle of solidarity could be integrated into human rights standards, despite its importance as a moral. Invoking solidarity as a rhetorical move could have negative consequences on international solidarity itself. For these reasons, the European Union Member States who were members of the Council called for a vote on the draft resolution and would vote against it.

Action on Resolution on Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/21/L.20) on Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council adopts the Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights as a useful tool for States in the formulation and implementation of poverty reduction and eradication policies; encourages Governments, relevant United Nations bodies, specialized agencies, funds and programmes, other intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations and non-State actors, including the private sector, to consider the Guiding Principles in the formulation and implementation of their policies and measures concerning persons affected by extreme poverty; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to disseminate the Guiding Principles; and decides to transmit the Guiding Principles on extreme poverty and human rights to the General Assembly for its consideration.

France, introducing draft resolution L.20, said that as recalled by the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights during the interactive dialogue at this twenty-first session of the Council, the objective of the Guiding Principles was to bring together in a single instrument existing obligations in the area of human rights. It was a particularly useful tool which should assist States in the elaboration and implementation of policies for extreme poverty eradication. The resolution’s objective was to adopt the Guiding Principles and transmit them to the General Assembly, closing a long process of consultations. The resolution was the result of open and transparent negotiations, and reflected the positions expressed in discussions. It was noted that the Secretariat had made changes of an editorial nature to the text. France requested a return to the version submitted. Extreme poverty was a universal phenomenon and the adoption by consensus of this resolution would constitute a considerable step forward in combating this scourge which was of concern to all.

United States, in a general comment, said that it was pleased to join the consensus on the resolution, which recognized the Guiding Principles as a useful tool for States to address extreme poverty. The United States had had a long commitment to international development and had allocated a lot of resources to combat extreme poverty everywhere. The fight against extreme poverty would only bear fruit with a strong human rights approach. The United States rejected the provision in the report of the Special Rapporteur that mentioned that States had a legal obligation to international solidarity.

Peru, speaking in a general comment, said that the Guiding Principles were aimed at providing employment and a human rights-based approach as a framework for poverty eradication programmes. The Guiding Principles were a toolbox to apply human rights standards while eradicating poverty. Peru was the main sponsor of the draft resolution, and was convinced that the adoption of those Guiding Principles would strengthen the fight against poverty on the ground. Peru expressed its gratitude to the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty for her work.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record