Human Rights Council
MORNING

5 March 2015 

Hears from Dignitaries from Republic of Congo, Mongolia, Colombia and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights
 
The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its High-Level Segment after hearing from dignitaries from the Republic of Congo, Mongolia, Colombia and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, and then held and concluded its General Segment.

Speakers in the High-Level Segment were: Basile Ikouébé, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of the Republic of Congo; Lundeg Purevsuren, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mongolia; María Ángela Holguín Cuéllar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Colombia; and Sylvie Kayitesi Zainabo, President of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, who spoke on behalf of the African Union.

At the end of the High-Level Segment, Belarus, Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan spoke in right of reply.  

In the General Segment, speakers expressed concern over the recent deterioration of human rights in many parts of the world, particularly due to terrorism, as well as over violations of international law in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq.  It was stressed that terrorists should not be allowed to destabilize societies nor have their actions condoned under the pretext of human rights.  Common action was necessary to fight poverty, to eliminate racial and sexual discrimination, to foster the power of women and to achieve gender equality, and to achieve the right to food, water and health.  Without sustainable development and the strengthening of national capacities, the achievement of those rights was not possible.  Cooperation was essential for the success of international efforts in that respect.  Some countries warned that the politicization of human rights issues and double standards were still prominent, adding that the Human Rights Council should respect the right of each State to manage its domestic affairs, and to avoid selectivity and focus on cooperation.  It was also noted that the respect for territorial inviolability and sovereignty of a nation could in no way serve as a pretext for the disrespect of human rights.

Civil society representatives stressed the importance of the rule of law in human rights protection.  The rule of law required States to respect the universality and indivisibility of rights, rather than pick and choose which rights to uphold.  The rule of law was fundamental to addressing the deprivation, exclusion and discrimination that perpetuated poverty.  It promoted transparency, accountability and inclusive participation in development processes.  Governments needed to translate principles of equality and non-discrimination into laws, policies and regulations, as well as a culture of institutions.   It was noted that climate change presented a global injustice and one of the greatest human rights challenges of our times.

Speaking in the General Segment were: China, Estonia, Ethiopia, Brazil, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Indonesia, India, France, Zimbabwe, Syria, Belarus, Malaysia, Monaco, Republic of Monaco, Iceland, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Uzbekistan, Nicaragua, and Angola. International Development Law Organization also spoke.

Representatives of national human rights institutions and civil society also spoke. Taking the floor were: International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions; civil society representative Aliaksandr Bialiaski; civil society representative from the Pacific; civil society representative from the Native American indigenous tribes of the United States; and civil society representative from human rights defenders in Africa.

Speaking in a right of reply following the General Segment were China, Japan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The Council is holding a full day of meetings today.  At noon, it will hear the High Commissioner for Human Rights present his annual report, followed by an interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner.

High-Level Segment

BASILE IKOUÉBÉ, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of the Republic of Congo, reiterated his country’s commitment to contribute to the strengthening of the Human Rights Council and its methods of work, and underlined the importance of international cooperation in the field of human rights.  In the Republic of Congo, the Government was committed to improve the legal and institutional frameworks and to cooperate with regional and international instruments with a view to promote and protect human rights.  The Republic of Congo deplored that the Human Rights Council, because of politicization, was not always able to quickly respond to issues of concern.  The Universal Periodic Review remained one of the most functional human rights instruments, as States were now aware of the importance of implementing recommendations made, with the support of technical assistance.  Technical assistance and capacity building programmes had to be proposed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and had to be based on recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review and by treaty bodies.  The Republic of Congo underlined the important role played by civil society, and the importance of providing a free and open space for it.  It believed that human rights, security and development were closely linked, and was therefore involved in peace efforts in the Central African Republic.  The Republic of Congo was deeply troubled by the threat that the Boko Haram armed group constituted, and supported efforts by the Economic Community of West African States to combat it. 

LUNDEG PUREVSUREN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mongolia, underlined the central role played by the Human Rights Council in promoting and protecting human rights.  The continuing human rights violations in many parts of the world remained a concern.  Human rights protection was key to security and democracy, and was a key element of Mongolia’s foreign policy.  Mongolia had in this regard presented its candidature to the membership of the Council for the first time.  Mongolia had been actively engaged on several issues, such as the abolition of the death penalty, combatting human trafficking, democratic governance, access to safe drinkable water and sanitation and preventable maternal mortality.  Mongolia had been undergoing profound changes and transition to become one of the most vibrant democracies in the region.  Mongolia was committed to sharing its experiences in the fields of human rights and good governance at the regional and international levels.  Mongolia looked forward to having a constructive dialogue during its second Universal Periodic Review, to be held in May.  Mongolia had been consistently supporting the work of Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, and had issued a standing invitation to all mandate holders.  Mongolia had also ratified many international human rights treaties, and attached great importance to collaborating with the treaty bodies.  Since the year before, Mongolia had started making voluntary contributions to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 

MARÍA ÁNGELA HOLGUÍN CUÉLLAR, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Colombia, said that human rights were a source of tremendous concern for all and their promotion and protection should be the ultimate goal of the international community.  Despite the five decades long armed conflict, Colombia had a vibrant economy, strong institutions and human rights-based policies that strengthened the rule of law.  Colombia was closer than ever to peace; victims of the armed conflict and their rights to truth, justice and reparation were at the heart of the Havana dialogue.  A Ministry for Peace, Human Rights and Human Security had been established, which would provide the integration of human rights policies.  Between 2010 and 2013, some four million persons had emerged from poverty and extreme poverty, half a million victims of the conflict had received compensation and reconciliation, and measures had been adopted to combat impunity, including the strengthening of the Office of the Prosecutor and increasing the budget for the justice system.  During this session, Colombia would work on the preparation of a resolution which would be a contribution of the Human Rights Council to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs in 2016. 

SYLVIE KAYITESI ZAINABO, President of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, speaking on behalf of the African Union, said that the Commission carried out awareness raising campaigns on human rights, and ensured that human rights were protected through fact-finding missions.  The Commission also had a complaint procedure, mandated to receive complaints by States, non-governmental organizations and individuals.  Human rights violations were frequent in Africa, and investigating them was a major challenge.  Positive progress had been made in terms of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, including in Ghana, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.  A study on the right to nationality had been recently initiated.  Progress had also been achieved regarding the use of the death penalty, including in Comoros Island, Ghana, Chad and Madagascar.  A draft African Union protocol on the death penalty was being created.  2014 had been a challenging year for promoting and protecting human rights in Africa.  Conflicts continued in many places on the continent, and the populations paid the price for this.  Human rights defenders suffered reprisals by States, and the Commission was making appeals to States in order to end such cases.  Challenges remained regarding lack of independence of the judiciary, restrictions to freedom of expression and other issues in many African countries. 

RIGHT OF REPLY

Belarus, speaking in a right of reply, said that Denmark, Norway and Montenegro had made exaggerated comments during yesterday’s panel discussion on the death penalty.  The death penalty was a sovereign right of States. 

Armenia, speaking in a right of reply, regretted that the Organization of the Islamic Conference seemed to believe that one nation only had the right to self-determination, and believed that attempting to divide Christian Armenians living in Arab countries was not a good approach.  Armenia also criticised a statement made by Turkey regarding the events of 1915.   Armenia was concerned that Azerbaijan had made a right of reply against it that had nothing to do with what had been said by Armenia, it had probably been prepared before Armenia had spoken. 

Turkey, speaking in a right of reply, said the statement of Armenia regarding the 1915 events was propaganda.  Selective memory was not a way to respect the memory of the many Armenians and Turks who had lost their lives during the First World War.  National memories of the mutually shared painful past could clash, but Turkey continued to seek an open and honest dialogue with Armenia.  It called on Armenia to replace its combative language with the one of understanding.

Azerbaijan, speaking in a right of reply, said that Armenia had used the Human Rights Council for its own propaganda and that it had distorted historical facts.   It was surprising that many countries blamed Azerbaijan for the occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and its surrounding territories, even though it was the Armenian military forces that had caused the displacement of the Azerbaijanis, and had prevented their cultural activities in the occupied territories. 

Armenia, speaking in a second right of reply, spoke about a person who had been turned into a national hero just for killing an Armenian, and this was the true face of Azerbaijan.  Azerbaijani authorities should focus on the human rights violations and atrocities in their own country.  They should stop their policy of denial, accept history and live in peace and harmony with their neighbours.

Azerbaijan, speaking in a second right of reply, said that more than 30,000 Armenians still lived and worked in Azerbaijan without any kind of discrimination.  Meantime, Armenia continued to carry out terrorist attacks against Azerbaijani civilians, in which more than 2,000 had been killed.

Turkey, speaking in a second right of reply, said that the 1915 events were not a taboo in Turkey, and were described in history and school books.  The problem with the Armenian approach was that it only aimed at demonizing Turkey.  Turkey hoped that Armenia would adopt a productive approach to normalize their relations. 

General Debate

China said that the politicization of human rights issues and double standards were still prominent.  China advocated reaffirming the solemn commitment to the United Nations Charter, respecting diversity including cultural diversity in human rights, respecting the model of human rights protection chosen by States, and treating all human rights equally.  The post-2015 development agenda must be centred on poverty alleviation and faster development.  Countries should learn from each other in their common pursuit of human rights and avoid confrontations.

Estonia was very concerned about the recent deterioration of human rights in many parts of the world.  The conflict in Ukraine was not an internal one and the role of the human rights monitoring mission was vital to document and deter systematic violations of human rights, particularly of Crimean Tatars.  The developments in the occupied territories of Georgia with occupying authorities cutting parts of Georgia off were worrying and all efforts should be made to achieve progress on security and humanitarian issues that continued to affect communities in Georgia.

Ethiopia said that terrorism posed a major challenge today: it knew no value of human rights, threatened established governments and destabilized entire societies, even more than wars.  There was a need to address grey areas in the nexus of taking measures to prevent acts of terrorism and prosecute persons responsible for those acts while promoting and protecting human rights; terrorists must not be allowed to destabilize societies or have their actions condoned under the pretext of human rights.  States which had ratified international human rights instruments needed support to develop approaches that took into consideration their local conditions.

Brazil reiterated its firm and unwavering support for the work of the Human Rights Council, adding that it was a priority for the current Brazilian Government.  Common action was necessary to fight poverty, to eliminate racial and sexual discrimination, to foster the power of women and to achieve gender equality, and to achieve the right to food, water and health.  Without sustainable development and the strengthening of national capacity, the achievement of those rights was not possible.  Cooperation was essential for the success of international efforts in that respect, as well as the introduction of education on human rights.

Ghana noted that while much progress had been made in various areas of human rights protection, a lot remained to be done on the ground.  Ghana noted that there was a need to move away from the naming and shaming strategy in the work of the Human Rights Council to one of dialogue, collaboration and sharing of best practices.  The rise of non-actors in violent conflicts was worrying because they abused the basic rights of innocent and vulnerable peoples.  The Government strongly condemned the terrorist acts perpetrated by Boko Haram in Nigeria, and called on the international community to help in the fight against that terrorist organization.

Côte d’Ivoire said that it was working to improve the national economy, rebuild institutions of the rule of law, and achieve the well-being of its population.  The Government’s focus on the achievement of social and political stability was based on the principle of sustainable development, which presupposed just distribution of wealth, protection of human rights, establishment of equitable and responsible justice, and peaceful coexistence with neighbouring countries.   The Government stressed international cooperation and participation in all international instruments for the protection of human rights, and to that end it would submit its candidacy for the 2016-2018 period in the Human Rights Council.

Indonesia said that as a multicultural country, Indonesia was committed to promoting tolerance and respect for human rights, and had undertaken reforms towards social stability, a robust civil society and free media.  It had undertaken a pro-people approach.  Indonesia supported the Universal Periodic Review, and underlined the importance of avoiding politicization and selectivity.  Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council had to uphold the highest standards of professionalism and fully comply with the Code of Conduct.  Indonesia had recently taken initiatives for adhesion to additional international human rights instruments.  

India underlined its commitment to the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and highlighted that it had strong constitutional safeguards for human rights, independent justice and a free and vibrant civil society.  India’s priority was to ensure rapid, sustainable and inclusive development, through measures to improve access to health and food and eradicate poverty.  The Human Rights Council should respect the right of each State to manage its domestic affairs, including on human rights issues, avoid selectivity and focus on cooperation. 

France said that human rights could not be used for cultural relativism of any kind.  There was today an increase of human rights violations, resulting from the multiplication of crises, and the resurgence of barbaric acts.  In Syria, massacres of minorities, including Christians, had been perpetrated by ISIL.  Boko Haram had committed atrocities in Nigeria.  The Paris attacks had targeted France’s values of democracy, culture and pluralism.  But the massive uprising of people in France showed that the French population was deeply attached to these values. 

Zimbabwe had made significant strides in the promotion and protection of the human rights of its people and had continued to implement the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation, aimed at promoting equitable development and prosperity for all.  All States should be guided by the principle of international cooperation and dialogue and desist from confrontational approaches, including naming and shaming some countries.  Zimbabwe rejected the imposition of country-specific mandates which tended to be manipulated and politicized by some influential members with hidden agendas

Syria said that the Human Rights Council was a cornerstone in respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, based on equality, and should desist from interference in the internal affairs of States.  The practice of setting up commissions of inquiry persisted, affirming selectivity and double standards of some Member States of the Council.  Syria questioned methods applied by the commission of inquiry on Syria and the criteria adopted in the collection of evidence, and said that the commission was going beyond its mandate in the scope of recommendations.

Belarus said that there should be no more repetitions of the horrors of the world wars, but 70 years after the founding of the United Nations, peace and security remained elusive, and the atmosphere of mistrust prevailed.  There was an increasing imbalance in the work of the Council and the neglect of economic, social and cultural rights.  Situations requiring the attention of the Council were urgent international problems which needed to be resolved, such as safety of civilians in conflict and disaster zones, massive deaths of migrants seeking better lives, and others.

Malaysia noted that challenges in the protection of human rights persisted worldwide.  Millions of people continued to live in poverty.  Intolerance, discrimination, oppression and violence continued.  The Human Rights Council thus needed to play a crucial role in the pursuit of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development, on an equal footing.  The Government of Malaysia expressed its dismay at the terrorist acts committed by the Islamic State, noting that bigotry, religious intolerance and Islamophobia should not be allowed to resurface. 

Monaco said that the Mediterranean basin was particularly affected by increasing human rights violations.  Syria had experienced the displacement of more than 8 million persons, and the situation has not improved at all.  Libya faced the worst political crisis and the greatest rise in violence since the armed conflict in 2011.  Monaco called on all concerned parties to engage in a constructive dialogue.  It warned of the danger of terrorism in certain African countries, such as extremists groups Da’esh and Boko Haram, which committed odious crimes and grave human rights violations.  Such events obliged the international community to reinforce its engagement in strengthening education on human rights.

Republic of Moldova said that the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, beliefs, political values and culture could not be allowed.  Respect for the principle of territorial inviolability and sovereignty of a nation over its land could in no way serve as a pretext for the disrespect of human rights.  A familiar pattern of fostering instability under the excuse of human rights protection had led to the ignition of artificial conflicts and the appearance of breakaway territories, including in the Republic of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine, which had profound consequences for international relations.

Iceland said that the past year had been illustrated by a deterioration of human rights in many parts of the world, and referred to the blatant violation of sovereignty in Ukraine, to horrors of Syria and savagery of ISIL and Boko Haram.  Iceland said that human rights defenders embodied hope but often faced fear, violence and retribution.  Iceland urged the new Government of Sri Lanka to deliver on its pledges of reform and justice.  It called for accountability of the Government of Syria, and demanded that efforts be made to reach a peaceful solution in Ukraine.  Iceland would continue its engagement for women, children and vulnerable groups who suffered disproportionately during conflicts. 

Luxembourg insisted on the importance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and of allocating sufficient funds to it.  It reiterated its commitment to human rights and to work constructively for the post-2015 development agenda.  It expressed concerns at the current crisis in Ukraine and human rights violations there.  Only scrupulous respect of the Minsk agreement could lead to de-escalation.  Luxembourg called on the Council to remain ceased of the situation in Syria, and expressed concerns about the situation in Iraq.  Luxembourg insisted on the importance of accountability. 
                 
Lithuania said that challenges were high today as violations of international law continued in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq.  Lithuania was deeply concerned about the situation in Ukraine, condemned in the strongest possible terms violence against civilians there, and called on the Russian Federation to use all its leverage to convince separatists there to respect the Minsk agreement.  Lithuania underlined the important role played by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and reiterated its attachment to the Women, Peace and Security agenda of the United Nations Security Council. 

Uzbekistan attached great importance to human rights mechanisms of the United Nations, particularly the Human Rights Council, and had already adopted a plan for the implementation of recommendations it had received from its Universal Periodic Review and the Special Procedures.  Uzbekistan had already achieved the Millennium Development Goals of full access to education, maternal mortality, gender equality and elementary and secondary education.  Civil society and media were playing an increasingly important role in the country.  For the first time, four political parties had put forward their candidacy for the upcoming Presidential elections.

Nicaragua said that tangible progress had been made in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals but that more remained to be done.  It was not possible to imagine a better world without putting human rights at the centre.  Entire nations were destroyed by war, leaving vicious circles of poverty, said Nicaragua, stressing that combating terrorism should not be paid for with civilian lives.  The invasive culture of imposing on others own models should be done away with and a culture of respect must take place, with respect for people and their right to decide their fate.

International Development Law Organization said it had witnessed in its field work the importance of the rule of law in upholding and operationalizing human rights.  The rule of law required States to respect the universality and indivisibility of rights and not pick and choose which rights to uphold.  The rule of law was fundamental to addressing the deprivation, exclusion and discrimination that perpetuated poverty; it promoted transparency, accountability and inclusive participation in development processes.  Governments needed to translate principles of equality and non-discrimination into laws, policies and regulations, as well as a culture of institutions.

Angola said that it was important to work on conflict prevention, and to try harder to protect future generations from the scourge of war.  Angola believed that peacekeeping decisions by the United Nations had to be taken by consensus and not enforce the political agenda of some States.  Angola condemned xenophobia and racism that was rampant throughout the world, and expressed concerns about acts of violence from terrorist groups. 

International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions said that transformative change and leadership were required for the protection of human rights.  It called on States to adopt a post-2015 development agenda consistent with international human rights law and in which human rights were recognized both as an end and as a mean to sustainable development.  It called on Member States to enforce data on development achievements, and underlined the role of national human rights institutions as key actors for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

ALIAKSANDR BIALIASKI, Civil society representative, said that he had been detained in Belarus, and regretted that human rights activists faced violence and harassment, such as in the Russian Federation.  Repressive regimes were jailing peaceful activists in order to silent dissent.  In many countries, human rights defenders paid with their lives for the exercise of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.  The Council had to put pressure on those that abused their powers in such ways. 

Civil Society Representative from the Pacific said that climate change was a global injustice and one of the greatest human rights challenges of our times.  Climate change negotiations continued to fail because the approach was wrong.  The language must change from vulnerabilities, but must look at values and opportunities available to both developing and developing countries.  The lack of political power was the greatest challenge now, and this was corruption at the highest level, it was criminal.  All members of the United Nations must commit to addressing climate change as a human rights issue.

Civil Society Representative from the Native American indigenous tribes of the United States said that there were many human rights issues that plagued the Native American populations, including violence against women, extreme poverty, lending practices, discrimination, and lawsuits over taxation.  Those were well documented.  The destructive practice of blood quantification to determine the degree of “Indian blood” aimed to divide the native populations and mathematically reduce the number of tribal members by attrition.

Civil Society Representative of Human Rights Defenders in Africa said that the human rights struggle was becoming more difficult across the globe and the space for those who defended human rights was becoming more restrictive.  The complexity of actors involved was expanding and the centres of power were shifting.  The Council had been made aware on numerous occasions of serious issues of intimidation, detention, enforced disappearances, and worse against those who took up the human rights struggle and engaged in this room.  The Council should adopt a robust and meaningful protection system for members of civil society speaking here

Right of Reply:

Japan, speaking in a right of reply, said that Japan had consistently pursued to build a nation that respected human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to promote peace and democracy around the world.  Japan was proud of its peace-loving nation and would never deviate from this path.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply, rejected absurd and stereotype accusations against it as they were false and countries should refrain from politicized and confrontational approaches.

China, speaking in a right of reply, rejected the explanation provided by Japan and said that the facts of the war on fascism had long been established and their revision was totally unacceptable.  The attempts to glorify its past which included aggression went against the international order established after World War II.

Japan, speaking in a second right of reply, recalled that in the past, China had expressed appreciation for Japan’s peace loving nation, and said that it was essential for Japan and China to develop positive and fruitful cooperation.

China, speaking in a second right of reply, urged Japan to respect victims and their feelings and to refrain from covering up the facts of history.  Instead, Japan should send out correct and positive messages.

__________________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr