Council considers outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Serbia, discusses Israel’s non-cooperation with the Review

AFTERNOON

7 June 2013

Concludes General Debate on Subsidiary Bodies of the Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council this afternoon considered the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Serbia, discussed Israel’s non-cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, and concluded its general debate on subsidiary bodies of the Council.

Miroslav Milosevic, Charge d’affaires in the Permanent Mission of Serbia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that Serbia had accepted 122 out of the 134 recommendations it had received. Serbia was taking a number of measures to combat discrimination and improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable groups, including national minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and internally displaced persons. A serious problem facing Serbia was discrimination against the Serbian and Roma minorities in Kosovo. Serbia had established a Council for National Minorities, and consultations were currently underway with representatives of civil society with a view to organizing a Gay Pride in Belgrade in September.

Sasa Jankovic, Ombudsman of Serbia, said that Serbia had a sound framework for the promotion and protection of human rights but ensuring implementation and respect for the rule of law was paramount for the future.

In the discussion that followed, speakers praised Serbia’s efforts to improve its human rights scenario and said that its engagement with the Universal Periodic Review was exemplary. However, others noted that problems remained in practice when it came to the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups and religious and ethnic minorities, and the conduct of the justice and legal systems.

Speaking in the discussion on Serbia were the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Algeria, Council of Europe, Cuba, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya and Morocco. The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: COC Nederland, Save the Children and Amnesty International.

The Council then adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Serbia.

Remigiusz Henczel, President of the Human Rights Council, presented his final report pursuant to Council decision OM/7/1 of 29 January 2013, entitled “the non-cooperation of a State under Review with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism”. This statement was directed at developments in the non-cooperation of Israel with the Human Rights Council. Mr. Henczel pointed out that during the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review all Member States of the United Nations, including Israel, had been successfully reviewed in a fair manner. Given the current non-cooperation of Israel, the second Universal Periodic Review of Israel had been deferred to October 2013, by which time it was hoped Israel would suspend its non-cooperation.

In response to the Chairman’s statement, speakers underlined the universality of the Universal Periodic Review and said that Israel’s non-cooperation was detrimental to the integrity of the mechanism. Many urged Israel to re-engage with the Human Rights Council.

Speaking in response to the President’s report were Palestine, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Maldives, Gabon on behalf of the African Group, Egypt, the European Union, Cuba, Venezuela, Canada, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Tunisia, Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group, and the United States, as well as the non-governmental organization Universal Periodic Review Info.

The Council then continued its general debate on the Council’s subsidiary bodies and mechanisms in which such topics as support for the Working Group on the declaration on the right to peace, support for integrating the human rights agenda into the conduct of business and enterprises, and support for the Universal Periodic Review and the Special Procedures were heard. Other topics raised included the persecution of Albinos in Africa, the land rights of indigenous people and the human rights situation in Western Sahara.

The first part of the general debate can be seen in HRC/13/78.

Speaking in the general debate were Venezuela, India, Maldives, Algeria, Norway, Sri Lanka, Cuba, China, the Holy See, Morocco, Denmark, Togo, Bolivia, Council of Europe and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Indian Council of South America, World Barua Organization, Maarij Foundation, World Federation of Democratic Youth, International Association of Peace Messenger Cities, Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights, the Japanese Association of Bar Association, Liberation, International Buddhist Relief, International Commission of Jurists and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development

Nigeria took the floor in a right of reply.

The next meeting of the Human Rights Council will be on Monday, 10 June, at 9 a.m. when it will hold a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review. The Council will then proceed to an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. The President of Austria, Heinz Fischer, will address the Council at noon on Monday.

Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review of Serbia

MIROSLAV MILOSEVIC, Chargé d’affaires in the Permanent Mission of Serbia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Serbia had accepted 122 out of the 134 recommendations it had received. There were five recommendations which were not accepted because it was impossible to implement them, given the Constitution which was in force in Serbia. Regarding the recommendations which had been accepted, Serbia said that it was prepared to implement all of those. Serbia was taking a number of measures to combat discrimination and improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable groups, including national minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and internally displaced persons.

One of the most serious problems facing Serbia for several years was the discrimination against the Serbian and Roma minorities of Kosovo. One hundred thousand persons had become internally displaced because of their non-Albanian ethnic origin and were in need of aid. Very few of those persons had returned to Kosovo despite the huge efforts made by Serbia in collaboration with United Nations mechanisms. In Kosovo there was ethnic intolerance, constant violation of the rights of Serbs, and restrictions on the freedom of movement.

Other measures taken by Serbia for the promotion and protection of human rights included a council established in order to improve the living conditions of the Roma people. Attention was also paid to combating trafficking in persons and protecting the victims of trafficking. Serbia had also established a Council for National Minorities, and consultations were currently underway with representatives of civil society with a view to organizing a Gay Pride in Belgrade in September. Serbia was moving forward in the process of democratization and was sincerely committed to the promotion and protection of human rights.

Sasa Jankovic, Ombudsman of Serbia, said in a video message that Serbia had accepted almost all the recommendations but more could be done. A legal and institutional framework was in place in Serbia, this was not the cause of problems that existed in the human rights sphere. Adding more laws or creating more bodies was not the answer. Rather a lack of implementation and respect for the rule of law had to be tackled. The focus on the rights of minority groups and combating all forms of discrimination was welcomed.

Republic of Moldova said that Serbia had significantly strengthened the promotion and protection of human rights, especially in terms of combating domestic violence and child pornography. The Republic of Moldova congratulated Serbia on accepting a large number of recommendations, including those put forward by the Republic of Moldova.

Romania noted that Romanian citizens in Serbia did not have the same rights as the rest of the population, which was regrettable for a country which had made significant progress in the field of human rights. Romania hoped that the situation would improve.

Slovakia said that there was clear evidence that Serbia was making efforts to promote and protect human rights, and that it had made significant progress in advancing its human rights situation since its first review. Slovakia encouraged Serbia to ensure as broad a participation of the civil society as possible in the implementation of the accepted recommendations.

Sri Lanka said it was aware that many of the accepted recommendations were in the process of being implemented or had already been implemented. Sri Lanka also welcomed efforts made by Serbia to combat discrimination and to protect the rights of women and children.

Viet Nam noted with appreciation Serbia’s seriousness with which it went about the Universal Periodic Review process and welcomed that Serbia had adopted Viet Nam’s recommendation about strengthening the rule of law.

Algeria said that Serbia’s Universal Periodic Review was a positive example of the process and was pleased that Serbia had adopted the recommendation of Algeria on the strengthening of minority rights.

Council of Europe took note of the productive process and praised the Government of Serbia for taking into account its recommendations about the reform of the judiciary. However, more could be done to protect minority language rights in Serbia.

Cuba thanked Serbia for its presentation and congratulated it for its spirit of cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review and the Council. Cuba was satisfied that Serbia had adopted its recommendation on the strengthening of legal, civil and minority rights.

Lao People’s Democratic Republic noted with satisfaction that Serbia had taken steps to implement recommendations, that it was party to many international human rights instruments, and that it was making visible efforts to promote and protect human rights.

Libya said that it was pleased to see that Serbia had accepted a large number of recommendations, including those made by Libya, and applauded Serbia for its adoption of measures to combat discrimination and to ensure social inclusion.

Morocco welcomed the acceptance by Serbia of the recommendations made by Morocco relating to the fight against corruption and the training of law enforcement officials. Efforts made by Serbia reflected its commitment to human rights in general and to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism in particular.

COC Nederland welcomed efforts made by Syria to improve the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. Despite improvements, however, the situation in Serbia remained difficult. The right to freedom of assembly had been violated in October 2012, when Gay Pride was banned by the Serbian authorities.
Save the Children welcomed the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review in Serbia, in particular the adoption of those recommendations that related to children. However existing services for trafficked children in Serbia were not suited to this specific group. The law on equality of education for children with disabilities was not adequately implemented.

Amnesty International welcomed Serbia’s support for the recommendation that it strengthen its prosecutorial actions against those accused of international crimes but noted that its record remained spotty in this respect. Meanwhile, there was also room for improvement in Serbia’s policies regarding resettled peoples.

MIROSLAV MILOSOVIC, Chargé d’affairs in the Permanent Mission of Serbia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked the speakers for their comments and said he would deal with specific points privately.

The Council then adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Serbia.

Discussion on Israel and the Universal Periodic Review

REMIGIUSZ A. HENCZEL, President of the Human Rights Council, presented his final report pursuant to Council decision OM/7/1 of 29 January 2013, entitled “the non-cooperation of a State under Review with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism”. This statement was directed at developments in the non-cooperation of Israel with the Human Rights Council. He said that on several occasions in recent months he had urged Israel to resume its cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which ensured the equal treatment of all States. He had pointed out that during the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review all Member States of the United Nations, including Israel, had been successfully reviewed in a fair manner. Given the current non-cooperation of Israel, the second Universal Periodic Review of Israel had been deferred to 2013. The Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations at Geneva proposed to engage in constructive dialogue with the Council in order to resolve all outstanding issues with regard to Israel’s complex relationship with the Council. The Universal Periodic Review of Israel had now been scheduled for October 2013 and Mr. Henczel strongly encouraged Israel to participate in its own review.

Palestine said it appreciated the President’s efforts to protect the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the integrity of the Human Rights Council in the face of the unprecedented non-cooperation and non-compliance of Israel. Palestine urged Israel to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and said that an exchange of letters was not sufficient to count as engagement. Palestine said it regarded the Universal Periodic Review deadline set by the President as final and binding.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that the Universal Periodic Review was a vital mechanism that had to be truly universal to be effective. Israel’s persistent non-compliance was a serious breach of United Nations system expectations and the Universal Periodic Review should go ahead as planned either in the presence or the deliberate absence of Israel.

Maldives praised the respected nature of the Universal Periodic Review process and stressed that its universality was paramount. The mechanism was the primary legacy of the Human Rights Council and it had to be allowed to go forward; the compliance of Israel would be a desirable outcome of the President’s actions.

Gabon, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group had carefully listened to the presentation of the report by the President. The Universal Periodic Review was an opportunity for the country under review to benefit from constructive and interactive dialogue with other countries to move forward in its programmes for the realization of the enjoyment of the human rights of its citizens. The African Group stressed the need for constructive commitment from all so as to preserve the credibility of the Human Rights Council.

Egypt said that it still believed that the Council stood at this juncture between protecting the principles of the Council and the objective of the fulfillment of a State’s human rights obligations and commitments. What they were seeing was continued non-cooperation of a State under review despite efforts exerted by all parties. Protecting the integrity of the Council was essential or they would be opening the door for further non-cooperation.

European Union said that it warmly commended the President’s efforts and thanked him for his report. The European Union continued to encourage Israel to participate in its Universal Periodic Review as now scheduled for 29 October 2013.

Cuba said that it appreciated the President’s efforts to make progress in that matter. The Universal Periodic Review was the most important mechanism of the Council, so it was important to respect its universality. Cuba condemned any effort to boycott the Universal Periodic Review and said that the attitude of Israel was deplorable and unacceptable. Cuba urged Israel to resume its cooperation with the Council, and also encouraged the President to make ever effort possible to persuade Israel to cooperate.

Venezuela thanked the President for his efforts and said that it was alarmed by the position of Israel, which was undermining the principal mechanism of cooperation of the Council and was setting a dangerous precedent. Despite the recent non-cooperation of Israel, Venezuela would support all steps taken to ensure that Israel participated in the mechanism on an equal footing with all other Member States of the United Nations.

Canada thanked the President for his sustained engagement and efforts to bring Israel back into the Universal Periodic Review. Canada said that Israel had shown signs of willingness to cooperate on the matter, and encouraged the President to continue his efforts to convince Israel to resume its cooperation with the Council. The Universal Periodic Review must be conducted with the full involvement of the country under review in a constructive, transparent, non-confrontational, and non-politicized spirit.

Costa Rica said that it had always advocated the Universal Periodic Review and its founding principles. It was vital to have the full participation of the country under review, in this case, the full cooperation of Israel. The mechanism should be safeguarded and not be taken hostage. Israel should participate in its review on October 29 this year.

Malaysia reaffirmed its commitment to and for the Universal Periodic Review process. It took note of the report of the President and it was with deep regret and disappointment that it noted that a positive response to re-engage had yet to be received from the State concerned. The review should be conducted in accordance with the decision of the Council.

Tunisia said that it attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Tunisia regretted the continuing attitude of the country under review and said that this was a case of persistent non-cooperation. There was no longer any reason to negotiate this with the State concerned.

Algeria, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the role of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was very important for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Arab Group reaffirmed its commitment to the Universal Periodic Review and said that transparency, objectivity, equal treatment and non-selectivity must be adopted. Non-cooperation with the mechanism could not be accepted, and it was important to protect the credibility of the Council.

United States appreciated the President’s efforts and stressed that universality was an important characteristic of the Universal Periodic Review. The United States expressed the hope that Israel’s recent engagement with the President would result in its participation in the rescheduled Universal Periodic Review, and said that such an outcome would benefit both Israel and the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.

Universal Periodic Review Info said that it was closely following developments and that it was disappointed that the Council had not addressed this instance of persistent non-cooperation in an appropriate manner. Israel’s behaviour clearly constituted persistent non-cooperation, which, Universal Periodic Review Info reminded the Council, was not limited to non-participation.

REMIGIUSZ A. HENCZEL, President of the Human Rights Council, said that he was grateful for the comments and support made in the discussion. He once again encouraged the State under review, Israel, to participate in its review at the seventeenth session of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review, now scheduled on 29 October 2013.

General Debate on Subsidiary Bodies of the Human Rights Council

Venezuela reaffirmed its position that peace was very important for the full respect of sovereignty and all human rights. It was regrettable that a few delegations had not supported the initiative of the Working Group on the right to peace and some countries were still resorting to the use of force in order to resolve issues. The international community was experiencing a proliferation of worldwide crises because of neo-liberal policies.

India, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, raised concerns about the United Nations Special Procedures and said that, even though the Special Procedures were an important mechanism of the Council, in certain cases such procedures had exceeded their official mandate or mandate-holders had not respected fully their conduct. On some occasions mandate-holders had requested country visits even after the end of their mandate.

Maldives said that respect for sustainable growth was critical for the promotion of the right to development. The core guidance of sustainable development was to protect the most marginalized and vulnerable groups in order to improve their well-being. The development of economic and social policies needed to engage participation from under-represented groups. Increased transparency of institutional designs required active participation at national and community levels.

Algeria said that the question of peace was enshrined in various international texts and instruments. Algeria believed that a declaration on the right to peace should refer to international law, and avoid introducing new concepts not enshrined in international texts and instruments. Algeria said that it should also include non-interference into the affairs of States.

Norway said that it had suggested that topics be included in this year’s Forum on Business and Human Rights, such as more discussion on the protection of human rights defenders and issues of corporate responsibility. An increasing number of human rights defenders faced various forms of restrictions. Norway would find it useful if a panel was convened on measures targeted for national implementation.

Sri Lanka brought to the attention of the Council certain instances where some Special Procedures mandate holders had not adhered to resolution 5/2 and had exceeded their respective mandates. There was a need for Special Procedures to be independent and objective in acting upon their respective mandates. It was also important for the Office of the High Commissioner to have an equitable distribution of financial resources among all Special Procedures mandate holders through a transparent process.

Cuba said it was it deeply committed to the negotiations on the draft declaration of the right to peace. The Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council had to be guided by a cooperative spirit and mutual understanding; anything less than full compliance with the Code of Conduct that governed them was unacceptable.

China said that it supported the Forum on Business and Human Rights and actively took part in all the processes associated with the furtherance of human rights in the conduct of business. China supported efforts to develop a declaration on the right to peace.

Holy See said that peace was the condition that made all other rights possible and therefore the threat of war had to be eliminated. The Holy See supported the efforts to develop a declaration on the right to peace. War was the result of human failure and while peace was less spectacular it was the only mode in which to build successful societies.

Morocco stressed the importance of the Social Forum as a space for dialogue and an opportunity to take stock of the causes and consequences of trade and economic policies on the enjoyment of a number of rights. It noted the importance of the conclusions and the recommendations of the Forum. A new paradigm for development was needed based on human rights, solidarity and participation.

Denmark said that it was among those States that continued to call for the creation of a ‘master calendar’ which it believed would provide the needed predictability, transparency and help in ensuring compliance with treaty reporting obligations. It did not find the proposed ‘opt-in calendar’ appropriate. The proposed ‘nimble calendar’ may indeed allow for better financial planning, but would not in itself be a sufficient measure.

Togo said that maintaining international peace and security, the main objective of the United Nations, was a difficult and lofty task requiring a legal arsenal. Togo recalled the close link that existed between security and the right to peace. Togo welcomed that the draft declaration recognised the important role of peacekeeping operations in exercising the right to peace.

Bolivia said peace was a fundamental right as a guarantee for living peacefully with other people at the individual level and between nations at the State level. Bolivia was a pacifist State and wholeheartedly supported the efforts of the Working Group on the right to peace.

Council of Europe said one of the primary responsibilities of businesses was towards international human rights protection. Alleged human rights abuses by businesses took place outside Europe so, despite the multinational nature of large companies, victims did not always have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. That made the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights even more important.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation spoke as a participant in the process supporting the promotion of a culture of peace and said that there was a holistic meaning to the notion of peace that had to be recalled. In the final analysis, peace was constructed in the minds of men, to paraphrase the Charter of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project drew attention to human rights violations suffered by albino people in a number of African countries. Albino parts were trafficked for traditional purposes and even shipped across borders. Recently an albino boy was murdered and situations like this were repeated all too often. The Project called on the Council to condemn these violations and carry out a study on this matter.

International Association of Democratic Lawyers welcomed the report of the Working Group on the right to peace and said that peace was one of the main purposes of the United Nations, respect for this right was in the common interests of all human kind and a number of international declarations had been drafted in this regard. The codification of this right should be a priority.

Indian Council of South America said that the rights of peoples, including their right to self-determination, must include the universal application of these rights in all Special Procedures and mechanisms of the Council. The Indian Council of South America also called on the Council to look at the World Intellectual Property Organization and other international standard setting processes which were not applying this right.

World Barua Organization said that the alienation felt by the indigenous people of north east India was a consequence of the region’s distance both geographically and culturally from the rest of the country. Indigenous peoples were being evicted from their own land and becoming a minority. The Council should urge India to acknowledge the aspirations of the inhabitants of the north east.

Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development said that it remained concerned about the trials of a number of Islamist leaders in Bangladesh. The articles and provisions of the tribunal violated the fair trial standards. The international community should stop the summary execution of imprisoned leaders and should ensure respect of the rights of defendants in that case, one of whom was 90 years old.

World Federation of Democratic Youth urged the Council to extend the mandate of the intergovernmental Working Group on the draft United Nations declaration on the right to peace to hold a second session in 2014. Adoption of a declaration on the right to peace would be an important step towards establishing peace, justice, security and prosperity for all.

International Association of Peace Messenger Cities expressed its support for the declaration on the right to peace on behalf of more than a 1,000 civil society groups. It regretted that the documents had not been published in all United Nations languages as yet and called for more participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society groups in the process of developing a text for the declaration.

Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights said Japanese history showed the importance of establishing the right to peace as an essential human right. It addressed its comments to the draft declaration on the right to peace and supported its articles that stressed opposition of peoples’ to Governments’ wars and the right to conscientious objection.

Japanese Federation of Bar Associations said that it represented 30,000 lawyers and the legal consequences of a right to peace could be profound in preventing the Government from going to war since this could be contested under the law. It noted that Japan was the only country in the world with a right to peace already written into its constitution.

Liberation said that there were forgotten countries like South Yemen and the Horn of Africa where over 200 million people lived and they represented the suffering segment of the international community. A real partnership was to work for effective conflict prevention measures and for post conflict and peace building through delivering new geopolitical arrangements with a view to admitting South and North Yemen into the Gulf Cooperation Council.

International Buddhist Relief Organization appreciated resolution 17/4 in which the Council decided to establish a Forum on Business and Human Rights and drew the attention of the Council to the specific rights of Dalit women in India. The organization also urged India, the Council and related mandate holders to take stronger measures to abolish the devadasi system.

International Commission of Jurists raised concerns with the way in which some States had narrowly read the provisions of the Code of Conduct for the Special Procedures on the question of recourse to urgent appeals.

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development said that the first Forum focused on identifying the challenges and best practices in implementing the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It encouraged the Working Group to ensure that affected persons, United Nations Special Procedures mandate-holders, and competent United Nations treaty bodies to participate in the second Forum.

Right of Reply

Nigeria, speaking in a right of reply, said that the federal government had set up a committee which had produced a national policy on albinism. Nigeria was fully committed to using that document in order to protect the rights of albinos throughout the country in a sustained manner.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record