Council holds dialogue with special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association

AFTERNOON

10 June 2014

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai.

Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, presenting his reports, said the report on freedom of expression in electoral contexts provided clear guiding principles that should frame the establishment and implementation of all regulations such as the promotion of pluralism, transparency and accountability. Regulations of political and electoral communications could both enhance and undermine the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and States had to carefully evaluate the impact of each norm and ensure an equitable balance was struck. He spoke about his missions to Montenegro, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Italy.

Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, expressed concern that States were increasingly resorting to harassment, intimidation, criminalisation and outright physical assault on members of civil society who spoke out in opposition of governments and their policies. His report examined the situation of a non-exhaustive list of marginalised groups: persons with disabilities, youth, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and others, and concluded that the marginalisation experienced by some groups was the result of deliberate acts or omissions by State and non-State actors, rather than conditions inherent to the groups themselves. Mr. Kiai spoke about his mission to Rwanda.

Italy, Montenegro, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Rwanda spoke as concerned countries.

In the discussion that ensued, speakers agreed that the right to freedom of expression was absolutely crucial to the conduct of free and fair elections, and noted that freely expressing political ideas and conducting elections in a democratic manner was difficult in violent and unsafe environments. Free elections were impossible to conduct if the media could not operate with safety and independence. Some speakers said that it must be recognized that the media could also play a negative role in electoral processes by promoting hate speech and stressed that a clear threshold must be established between freedom of expression and incitement to hatred.

The rights to peaceful assembly and association and to freedom of opinion and expression should be enjoyed without distinction and under no restrictions other than those in conformity with the law and necessary in the interest of national security and public order, morals, public health, and the exercise of rights and freedoms of others. Governments had the right to take appropriate measures to maintain public order and security and citizens and civil society organizations had the responsibility to respect national legislation. Speakers noted that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association was key in empowering individuals from groups at risk to claim their other rights and overcome challenges associated with marginalization and they asked Mr. Kiai to provide examples of positive measures that States could take in this regard.

Speaking in the discussion were the European Union, Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), Sierra Leone, Austria, Morocco, Czech Republic, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Estonia, Poland, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Australia, Viet Nam, Angola, Guatemala, Canada, Cuba, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland, Malaysia, Venezuela, Belgium, Mexico and United States.

Speaking in a right of reply in response to the general debate this morning on agenda item two on the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were Bahrain, Republic of Korea, Syria, Morocco, Russia, Egypt, Algeria, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia.

The Human Rights Council will next meet in public at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 June to hold a panel discussion to identify challenges and good practices to ensure the safety of journalists and to promote better understanding of relevant international human rights norms and standards. It will resume the clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the freedom of opinion and expression and on the freedom of assembly and association at 12.30 p.m.

Documentation

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Frank La Rue (A/HRC/26/30)

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, on his mission to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (A/HRC/26/30/Add.2)

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, on his mission to Italy (A/HRC/26/30/Add.3)

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, on his mission to Montenegro (A/HRC/26/30/Add.1)

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on peaceful assembly and association, Mr. Maina Kiai, assessing the threats to the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association for groups most at risk (A/HRC/26/29) and a report on his mission to Rwanda (N/A electronically)


Presentation of Reports by the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and on Peaceful Assembly and Association

FRANK LA RUE, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, presenting his reports, referred to his country visits. He was disappointed that Pakistan and Indonesia had failed to provide precise dates for a visit. Regarding the visit to Montenegro, the lack of safety of journalists had emerged as the main concern in many of his activities in Montenegro. With regards to a visit to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, there was particular concern about various allegations received regarding disproportional restrictions being imposed, mainly over the last three years, on independent or critical segments of the media. With reference to a visit to Italy, concerns remained with regard to issues such as the inadequate legislation for defamation, the appointment of members in regulatory bodies and in the board of the Public Broadcaster and the recurrent emergence of hate speech.

Mr. La Rue said he had examined some of the main concerns regarding freedom of expression in electoral contexts and provided recommendations to help aligning States’ regulations of political communications with international norms. To prepare the report, six regional expert meetings were organised. Unfortunately, it was quite easy to identify numerous structural, legal and practical barriers that continued to impede the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression during electoral processes around the world today. Concerns existed in all regions. However, the nature of the obstacles and the severity of their consequences were unique depending on the country. In some situations, politically dominant groups directly attacked and intimidated persons in order to silence voices of dissent and criticism. Freedom of expression in political processes was also often undermined by the imposition of norms unduly restricting political discourse and affecting the independence of the press. Freedom of expression in electoral processes could be affected by the lack of pluralism in political life and the lack of diversity in the media.

The report provided some very clear guiding principles that should frame the establishment and implementation of all regulations such as the promotion of pluralism, transparency and accountability. Transparency was a core requirement for informed political decisions. The report underscored that regulations of political and electoral communications could both enhance and undermine the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. States therefore had to carefully evaluate the impact of each norm and ensure an equitable balance was struck. Most importantly, it was critical that judicial entities were totally independent and sufficiently resourced to timely and effectively implement their tasks.

MAINA KIAI, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, presenting his third report, said that the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association had not, overall, improved significantly since his last report. It was worrying to see that States were increasingly resorting to harassment, intimidation, criminalisation and outright physical assault on members of civil society who spoke out in opposition of governments and their policies. Governments were still placing barriers to the ease with which civil society could form organizations; were restricting crucial access to resources, in particular foreign funding; and they were hindering the continued operation of organizations that did not express views or hold opinions considered favourable by those in power. Mr. Kiai noted that the report examined the situation of a non-exhaustive list of marginalised groups: persons with disabilities; youth; women; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people; members of minority groups; indigenous peoples; internally displaced persons; and non-nationals, including refugees, asylum seekers and migrant workers. The marginalisation experienced by some groups was the result of deliberate acts or omissions by State and non-State actors, rather than conditions inherent to the groups themselves. In many instances, however, laws meant to regulate the freedoms of peaceful assembly and of association or general legal provisions contained explicitly discriminatory provisions that restricted or entirely prohibited certain groups or individuals from exercising their rights to assemble and associate.

States were not doing enough to ensure that everyone could form and join associations; and, in the face of increasing racism and xenophobia, were not doing enough to prohibit and criminalise the formation of associations that promoted racism and discrimination. States had a legitimate obligation to regulate areas such as counter-terrorism and criminal procedure but were often taking advantage of this responsibility to target the activities of marginalised groups. States should take concrete measures to ensure that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association were fully protected and facilitated, recognising that these rights provided a vehicle for groups most at risk to be heard.

Concerning his official visit to Rwanda in January this year, Mr. Kiai commended Rwanda’s determination and commitment in the 20 years since the genocide in 1994. Rwanda had recorded tremendous reconstruction and growth in virtually all aspects of its national life and appreciated the need for reconciliation and reassurance against the recurrence of genocide. Mr. Kiai was concerned, however, that the approach adopted to achieve reconciliation and reconstruction was undermined by the extremely limited space afforded to critical and dissenting voices in society. Several interlocutors emphasised that Rwanda favoured a political order based on so-called “consensus.” But this consensus was led by the ruling party and discouraged public criticism and dissent. The effective exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association was a necessary feature of such a democracy.

Statements by Concerned Countries

Italy, speaking as a concerned country, reiterated its firm commitment to uphold freedom of opinion and expression at the international and national level as this freedom was at the heart of the promotion and protection of human rights and crucial for safeguarding human dignity. Concerning defamation, Italy had presented a new Bill to amend the current legislation by, inter alia, abolishing imprisonment as a sanction of defamation and strengthening the mechanisms to discourage frivolous litigation. The existing solid legislation governing conflicts of interest was under scrutiny of the Parliament to further improve its efficacy. Preventive and punitive measures were being undertaken to address hate speech and any stigmatization of ethnic and social groups and instigation to racial hatred was severely punished by the Criminal Code.

Montenegro, speaking as a concerned country, stressed that it had undertaken a number of important steps on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and acknowledged the remaining challenges to their full implementation in the country. The Constitution now guaranteed the freedom of the press, prohibition of censorship, the right to access information and the right to freedom of assembly, while insult and libel had been decriminalized. Montenegro fully supported the efforts to guarantee the safety of journalists and had recently established a National Unit in support of investigations for pending and current criminal offenses against journalists. The protection of journalists remained an area of priority, including, when needed, deployment of police protection to prevent recurrence of threats and violence against journalists.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, speaking as a concerned country, said that in the past 20 years, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had undertaken significant reforms in the field of media and freedom of opinion and expression, most recently in direct response to recommendations made by various Special Rapporteurs. From April to July 2013, the Ministry of Information, Society and Administration had conducted a wide consultation process with domestic stakeholders and international experts regarding the Media Law and the Law on Audio and Audio-Visual Media Services. In December 2013, the Council for Media Ethics was established as the first self-regulatory media body. The Government was committed to continue the dialogue with the media representatives in order to address outstanding issues, including governmental campaigns, strengthening the role of the public broadcaster, as well as increasing standards of journalism.

Rwanda, speaking as a concerned country, said that the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda had left an indelible mark on the people of Rwanda. In the 20 years since the end of the genocide, the Government had assiduously advanced the eradication of genocide ideology, in parallel with the promotion of unity and reconciliation of all Rwandans through an honest and critical examination of all aspects of its history using both traditional mechanisms and processes and experiences from other countries. The Constitution provided for the fundamental human rights of every Rwandan, including the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. The Constitutional provisions guaranteed the right of every Rwandan to hold and participate in peaceful assemblies. While the report of the Special Rapporteur recognised the challenges of the post-genocide context of Rwanda and positive steps taken, it contained a number of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and mischaracterizations.

Interactive Dialogue

European Union said it had recently updated the guidelines for the protection of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression online and offline, which also covered the electoral processes, and asked the Special Rapporteur about concrete measures to undertake to protect journalists online and offline? The right to freedom of association and assembly must be protected but also encouraged and the European Union asked Mr. Kiai about the principal reasons that made Governments resort to restrictive measures against persons most at risk. Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, recognized the rights to freedom of assembly and association and stressed that this freedom should be exercised with regards to national laws, national security interests and morals and customs of societies. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, agreed that the freedom of expression played a central role in ensuring free and open political process, but it was important to recognize that the media could also play a negative role. Necessary legislation was crucial in combating hate speech and in electoral processes a clear threshold must be established between the freedom of expression and incitement to hatred. Sierra Leone agreed that political campaigns must be open and fair, and asked Mr. La Rue to share examples of how the challenge of ensuring the right to freedom of expression and curbing hate speech was met. Sierra Leone acknowledged the role of civil society in peace processes and stressed the responsibility of civil society organizations and citizens to respect national legislation.

Austria shared concern that in an environment where violent attacks and intimidation were present, it became difficult to freely express political ideas and conduct elections in a free, fair and democratic manner. Austria repeated the call on States to ensure that administrative and law enforcement officials were adequately trained regarding the rights of individuals belonging to groups most at risk, in relation to the freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Brazil said that as rightly pointed out, freedom of expression played a central role in ensuring that political and electoral processes were open, free and fair. The right to privacy and freedom of expression were intertwined and mutually dependent. Brazil fully agreed that democracy involved more than just exercising the right to vote. Republic of Korea said the Special Rapporteur had well highlighted three principles which States should seek to ensure the application of freedom of opinion and expression in the electoral process. Special attention was drawn to the relevant point made that States should avoid the occurrence of hate speech. Freedom of assembly and association constituted fundamental human rights which had to be guaranteed without distinction.

Morocco underscored the relevance of the core principles identified by the Special Rapporteur, such as the need for political pluralism. Morocco had a High Office for Audio-Visual Communication, which also worked to ensure that competing candidates had the right to the same amount of air-time. Electoral law provided for sanctions should violations take place. Czech Republic attached great importance to the effective participation of all segments of society in elections. The Czech legal system guaranteed freedom of opinion and expression, and paid attention to the need for objectivity and balance in the media, especially in the run up to and during elections. It agreed that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association were due to everyone without distinction. Estonia said it was a firm supporter of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the electoral context. It fully shared the view that States had to ensure that the rights to freedom of opinion and expression were guaranteed to the full spectrum of the media during the electoral process. Were there any proposals on how to generate online services for the election registration process?

Poland concurred that free and fair electoral processes were necessary for democracy, and free elections were impossible to conduct if the media could not operate with safety and independence. Poland also shared the concern about the persecution of religious and other vulnerable groups and asked Mr. Kiai how their freedom of association could be effectively promoted. Egypt agreed that a free and pluralistic media should be promoted during the time of elections and it was important for individual liberty as much as for participation, accountability and democracy. Concerning the right of freedom of association and peaceful protests, Egypt noted that Governments had the right to take appropriate measures to maintain order and security, and regretted that Mr. Kiai had expanded the category of groups at risk to a new level which was not justified. France said that freedom of expression played a crucial role in the enjoyment of democracy and human rights. Concerning the safety of journalists and media workers, in the context of elections, did the Special Rapporteur have any recommendations or examples? Could Mr. Kiai offer examples of good practices concerning affirmative action to protect marginalised groups’ freedom of assembly?

Indonesia underlined the need to adhere to the principles of pluralism, transparency and accountability in ensuring the framework in which freedom of expression in the context of elections could be guaranteed. How was it possible to prevent undue media dominance or concentration in practise? Indonesia was committed to ensuring the rights of all groups, including to peaceful assembly and association. Australia said that although international recognition of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly was longstanding they could not be taken for granted, and was concerned by violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. Could Mr. La Rue comment on measures to guarantee the protection of journalists in electoral contexts? Viet Nam noted that the rights to peaceful assembly and association and to freedom of opinion and expression should be enjoyed without distinction and under no restrictions other than those in conformity with the law and necessary in the interest of national security and public order, morals, public health, and the exercise of rights and freedoms of others.

Cuba stated that the freedom of expression during electoral processes was a complex issue, and the role played by the press was important. Ethical standards and respect for the truth had to guide media behaviour, and even more so during electoral campaigns. The way in which electoral campaigns were financed was a demonstration of how in some countries major corporations and those with most funds had the most influence. Cuba believed that Mr. Kiai lacked objectivity and impartiality, and was unfairly critical towards mostly developing countries. Angola said that the challenges faced by various marginalized groups in society had been rightly raised by Mr. Kiai. Angola guaranteed freedom of association, for which there were legal provisions in compliance with relevant international instruments. Angola shared the views of the Special Rapporteur on the incitement to racism in various regions around the world, and that any restrictions had to be justified by the interest of national and public safety, health, morals, and rights of the others. Guatemala endorsed Mr. La Rue’s appeal for freedom of the media and his preoccupation with the safety of journalists. Guatemala stressed that the protection of journalists was particularly important when elections were taking place. All political creeds had to be protected, and voters had to have access to varied and reliable information when making electoral decisions.

Canada said that the right to form groups and to peacefully assemble were legally guaranteed in Canada by its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which formed part of the Constitution. Canadian police upheld high professional standards preserving civil liberties and maintaining the peace. Canada had a strong system of independent courts and tribunals, as well as police oversight mechanisms and practices, which together ensured accountability for any arbitrary unconstitutional restrictions. The Netherlands said that it was the primary obligation of the State to protect those most vulnerable within society and to promote tolerance amongst its people. As long as it was done peacefully and did not incite violence and hatred, assembly of people should be allowed. The Netherlands thus deemed unduly restriction of the rights to peacefully assemble and associate to be clearly unacceptable. Switzerland especially highlighted Mr. La Rue’s cooperation with regional organizations and endorsed his views that freedom of expression was a necessary precondition for full participation in political life. Switzerland shared Mr. Kiai’s position and wondered how a State could take necessary precautions to ensure that minors participating in public assemblies were protected. Civil rights defenders played a major role in that regard and the fact that they were frequently targeted was worrisome.

Freedom of expression in electoral processes was absolutely crucial to the conduct of free and fair elections and that was why blocking of access to social media by some Governments was an issue of concern, said the United Kingdom, stressing that the rights enjoyed offline must also be respected online. Norway agreed that absence of regulatory frameworks to control political financing and spending could undermine the exercise of freedom of expression during electoral processes and asked what could be done to ensure that all voices had a space in the public debate during elections. Ireland asked Mr. La Rue to elaborate on his recommendation that electoral bodies be given sufficient resources and authority to conduct their mandates. Ireland further stressed the urgency to put a stop to measures that hindered the work of civil society, such as limitations on foreign funding, and asked about the best practice on facilitating the right to freedom of assembly for groups at risk.

Malaysia agreed that the free flow of ideas was a core requirement for the promotion of democratic space and said that as a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society and country, the Government had an overarching responsibility to ensure the protection of national interests, public order and societal harmony. Venezuela underlined that the right to freedom of opinion and expression was fully implemented in the country, while its Constitution guaranteed freedom to assembly without any limitations, with the exception of those provided for by the law; those were the limitations necessary to ensure the functioning of any democratic society. Belgium concurred that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association were key in empowering individuals from groups at risk to claim their other rights and overcome challenges associated with marginalization and asked Mr. Kiai to provide examples of positive measures that States could take in this regard.

Mexico was convinced that the consolidation of democracy had to be based on the unrestricted respect of human rights and participation, and had enacted gradual electoral reforms, including recent constitutional amendments to ensure gender equality and rules on campaign spending. Mexico noted that Mr. Kiai had omitted the situation of undocumented migrants whose frequently violated fundamental rights ought to be protected. United States agreed on the central role played by freedom of expression in order to ensure that political processes were free and fair and asked Mr. La Rue how Egypt’s restrictive environment had impacted on its recent elections; the delegation also shared concerns on the restriction of the freedom of association of particular groups imposed by some Governments as well as discriminatory practices in which police and authorities failed to protect minority populations.

Right of Reply

Bahrain, speaking in a right of reply in response to the joint statement made by Switzerland on behalf of a group of countries, said while Bahrain assumed that the statement was delivered in good faith and with good intentions, it undermined Bahrain’s efforts to comply with its international obligations and its voluntary pledge to present a report on the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations.

Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply, stated that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had tried to divert attention from its gross human rights violations by providing false accusations against the Republic of Korea. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should fully cooperate with all human rights mechanisms, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Syria, speaking in a right of reply, said that Syria was a country of coexistence among different groups and had been a safe haven for centuries. Nobody in the world except for the Syrian people could give legitimacy to the rulers of Syria. The Syrian people had expressed their opinion in recent presidential elections, showing the world that they were free to select their leaders, which would perhaps also be the case in Saudi Arabia one day. Saudi Arabia, while pretending to be concerned, was sending terrorists into Syria, and it should stop interfering in Syria’s internal affairs.

Morocco, speaking in a right of reply, said that Algeria had no right to speak of immigrants in Morocco. Algeria had been promoting a separatist agenda in Morocco for decades, and it had no right to speak of human rights in Morocco, when human rights violations in Algeria were very serious. The visit of the High Commissioner to Morocco had been the best response to Algeria’s claims.

Russia, speaking in a right of reply, referred to statements made by the United States, the European Union and Ukraine, which were attempting to mislead the international community with regards to the situation in Ukraine. Unlawful armed forces were being strengthened by the Government of Ukraine. The amnesty to protest participants had not been granted and journalists were also being prosecuted. Russia was surprised by how the murder of peaceful civilians could be called a “measured” response. The right of the population of Crimea was now far more reliably protected than when it was a part of Ukraine.

Egypt, speaking in a right of reply in response to statements by the European Union, the United States and Iceland, expressed disappointment to referral over the compliance of Egypt with its international human rights obligations and commitments. Egypt had expected to receive a positive message at this juncture. Egypt fully honoured its human rights commitments as stipulated in the human rights treaties. On accountability, the independent Committee responsible was undertaking its investigations with the full cooperation of the Government authorities and the report was due to be published soon.

Algeria, speaking in a right of reply, recalled that the Council and the international community had to focus special attention on the protection of human rights in Western Sahara, as per the report by the United Nations Secretary-General. Algeria invited Members of the Council to read this report for further information. On information provided by Morocco on the status of Algeria, it was recalled that this observer status was a result of the Security Council’s decision and it was not up to the delegation of Morocco to deny this status.

Ukraine, speaking in a right of reply, emphasized that the first priority of the newly elected President was to implement the peace plan to resolve the situation in the eastern regions. This included disarmament of everyone who illegally took up arms and the exemption from criminal responsibility for those who did not have the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians on their hands. At the core of the plan was a continuation of the broad national dialogue on the decentralization of power, early local elections in Donbas and an economic reforms package. Ukraine was conducting a rightful and legitimate anti-terrorist operation to secure sovereignty and territorial integrity and restore the law and order in its eastern regions.

Saudi Arabia, speaking in a right of reply, said that the Syrian regime was wasting the time of the Council and the international community with groundless allegations, thinking that this would hide the crimes being committed. The first source of terrorism was the Syrian regime which was using lies against its own people. The media campaign against Saudi Arabia conducted by Syria was a slander and the world knew where Saudi Arabia stood with regard to terrorism; it was one of the countries which had always fought this scourge.

Morocco, in a second right of reply, said that Algeria was not best placed to speak about human rights in the Western Sahara because it had been a party to the conflict since its beginning. The situation of human rights in Moroccan Sahara was much better than in Algeria and before criticizing, Algeria should verify its allegations.

Algeria, speaking in a second right of reply, said that in the regrettable incident in which two persons had been killed at the border between Algeria and Mauritania, Algerian forces had provided legal warnings, but they had refused to stop, which had indicated that they had been involved in fuel trafficking. On the other hand, the High Commissioner for Human Rights had stated that actions of some law enforcement officers in Morocco should be carefully looked into. An Amnesty International report confirmed the same.

Syria, speaking in a second right of reply, said that it was not surprised by what Saudi Arabia had said. The entire world now knew that Syria was fighting terrorism which was funded by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia, speaking in a second right of reply, said that it was important to remind the delegate of Syria that Saudi Arabia and its delegation were not going to be led down the path of tossing insults back and forth. It was not surprised to see or hear the delegate of Syria talk about secret cooperation. The entire world had taken an unwavering decision on the role played by the Syrian regime. As for the role of Saudi Arabia in tackling terrorism, it had thus far made many efforts to try and calm the crisis in Syria.

_________

For use of the information media; not an official record