Human Rights Council holds interactive dialogue on arbitrary detention and contemporary forms of slavery

AFTERNOON

14 September 2015

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive clustered dialogue with Seong-Phil Hong, Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and Urmila Bhoola, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery.

Mr. Hong, presenting the Working Group’s reports, underlined the increasing instances of arbitrary detention as a consequence of drug control laws and policies. Criminal laws and penal measures pursued under the existing punitive system of international drug control raised important questions of legality, proportionality, necessity and appropriateness. Mr. Hong updated the Council on the visits to New Zealand, Germany and Italy that the Working Group conducted in 2014. He also announced that the Working Group would submit for the Council’s consideration the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court.

Presenting her reports, Ms. Bhoola noted that global businesses with supply chains that involved complicated networks of subsidiaries, franchises, suppliers, contractors and subcontractors were more likely to encounter contemporary forms of slavery, especially beyond the first tier of their supply chains. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights validated the duty of States to protect, prevent, investigate and redress business-related human rights harms through effective policies, legislation, regulation and adjudication. In that context, States were encouraged to adopt legislation requiring transparency in supply chains, human rights due diligence, public reporting and disclosure by business.

Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Belgium and Niger spoke as concerned countries.

Sudan, Bahrain, Japan, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Venezuela, China, Russian Federation, Syria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia spoke in right of reply.

The Council will reconvene on Tuesday, 15 September at 9 a.m. to continue the clustered interactive dialogue with the Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Representative on contemporary forms of slavery. The Council will then begin a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, and with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

Documentation

The Council has before it the Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (A/HRC/30/36)

The Council has before it the Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention -Addendum - Follow-up mission to Germany (A/HRC/30/36/Add.1).

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - Follow-up mission to New Zealand (A/HRC/30/36/Add.2)

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - Follow-up mission to Italy (A/HRC/30/36/Add.3)

The Council has before it the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on remedies and procedures on the right of anyone deprived of their liberty to bring proceedings before a court - Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (A/HRC/30/37)

The Council has before it the Methods of work of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (A/HRC/30/69)

The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences (A/HRC/30/35)

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences - Mission to the Niger (A/HRC/30/35/Add.1)

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences - Mission to Belgium (A/HRC/30/35/Add.2)

Presentation of Reports by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery

SEONG-PHIL HONG, Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, underlined the increasing instances of arbitrary detention as a consequence of drug control laws and policies. Criminal laws and penal measures pursued under the existing punitive system of international drug control raised important questions of legality, proportionality, necessity and appropriateness. Speaking of country visits, Mr. Hong encouraged Governments to extend invitations to the Working Group for visits because they provided an excellent opportunity for Governments to highlight developments and progress in ensuring respect for human rights, including the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty. In March and April 2014, the Working Group visited New Zealand. It noted that New Zealand’s legal framework concerning arbitrary detention was well developed and generally consistent with international human rights law and standards. However, the Working Group expressed hope that new Zealand would continue its efforts to reduce the reoffending rate through adequate programmes, and to tackle the root causes of discrimination against Maori and Pacific Islanders in the criminal justice system. The Government should also continue to extend measures to improve the mental health care and treatment of persons in detention. As for the visit to Germany in November 2014, the Working Group noted that the Government should continue reducing the length of detention to the period of time strictly necessary for identification, and that it should prohibit pre-detention custody orders against persons belonging to particularly vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied minors. It should also take steps to prevent the violation of human rights during deportations. As for the visit to Italy in July 2014, the Working Group remained concerned about the high number of pre-trial detainees and the resulting problem of overcrowding in the penitentiary system. In addition, there was a need to monitor and remedy the disproportionate application of pre-trial detention in the cases of foreign nationals and Roma, including their minors. Italy did not have a general policy of mandatory detention against asylum seekers and migrants in irregular situation.

As for the Council’s request in 2012 that the Working Group draft principles and guidelines on remedies and procedures on the right to court review of detention, the Working Group continued seeking the views of States, United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations, treaty bodies and other Special Procedures, national human rights institutions, and non-governmental organizations. The gathered information demonstrated that the right to court review of detention was recognized in all major international and regional instruments for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Working Group announced that it would submit to the Council the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court for consideration.

URMILA BHOOLA, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, stated that global businesses with supply chains that involved complicated networks of subsidiaries, franchises, suppliers, contractors and subcontractors were more likely to encounter contemporary forms of slavery, especially beyond the first tier of their supply chains. There was still limited specific data on the scope and prevalence of contemporary forms of slavery in the supply chains of specific commodities and sectors, particularly in the informal economy and domestic production for global brands. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights validated the duty of States to protect, prevent, investigate and redress business-related human rights harms through effective policies, legislation, regulation and adjudication. In that context, States were encouraged to adopt legislation requiring transparency in supply chains, human rights due diligence, public reporting and disclosure by business. Effective law enforcement was as important. States also had to put more emphasis on the preventive aspect through tackling the root causes, including poverty, discrimination, stigmatization, inequality and social exclusions of groups most vulnerable to exploitation.

Global brands operating complex supply chains had increasingly adopted voluntary codes of conduct, which prohibited the use of forced labour, child labour and other slavery-like practices from their operations. Traceability required businesses to prove that products were made in “clean production” at every step and were free of slavery or slavery-like practices. States ought to take appropriate steps to ensure effective judicial remedies and reduce barriers that could deny access to remedy for victims. Unfortunately, the right to an effective remedy remained elusive, particularly for the most vulnerable workers in supply chains. Workers who were not members of trade unions might not be aware that their rights had been violated. There was a call for increased dialogue, coordination and cooperation, and intensified efforts to ensure that the most vulnerable workers were not exploited as slaves in their efforts to simply earn a living.

In the report on Niger, Ms. Bhoola welcomed the efforts in combatting slavery and slavery-like practices, but noted the need for a more comprehensive approach. A nationwide study in that regard was recommended, the results of which should serve as a basis for devising a national strategy and an action plan. Law enforcement and access to remedy ought to be more effective, while victims had to be rehabilitated. Niger had become the only country to ratify the Protocol of 2014 to the ILO Forced Labour Convention. Regarding her visit to Belgium, Ms. Bhoola said that a comprehensive, multidisciplinary cooperation mechanism in place was commendable. Her recommendations referred mainly to the need for strengthened victims detection and identification. All actors taking part in the multidisciplinary approach should be provided with sufficient and sustainable human and financial resources to be able to carry out their functions.

Statements by Concerned Countries

Germany, speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for their visit in November 2014 and the report and said that its comments had been communicated by verbal note on 15 May 2015. Germany requested that those comments and the report of the Working Group be published on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website to allow for full and transparent documentation.

Italy, speaking as a concerned country, said that it had ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances in July 2015 and had over the last years introduced several measures aimed at both reducing prison overcrowding and limiting pre-trial detention, including the submission to the Council of Europe of the ad hoc Plan by the Penitentiary Administration in 2014. The release of alternative measures to detention was mainly based upon the condition of a fixed abode, which was often lacking and explained over-representation of Roma and immigrants in prisons and correctional facilities. On the detention of asylum seekers and migrants, the Italian Supreme Court had recently reiterated the need for strict compliance with Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to grant international protection to whoever may be exposed to the risk of life and torture in their country of origin regardless of the seriousness of the crime committed in Italy.

New Zealand, speaking as a concerned country, welcomed the finding that the New Zealand legal framework was well developed and consistent with international norms and standards. The over-representation of Mauri and Pacific people in the criminal justice system had been an issue of concern to New Zealand and the decrease in crime rates over the past several years had led to the reduction of the number of people in detention, and this was also true for the Maori. The detention of people with mental illness was governed by the legislation which was in line with New Zealand’s international obligations. A number of checks and balances were in place to ensure the rights of persons with mental illnesses.

Belgium, speaking as a concerned country, underlined the importance of country visits by Special Procedures, and reiterated its support to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery. Belgium had taken the approach to link criminal offenses to human trafficking, and besides positive steps taken by the authorities, challenges remained. Belgium recognized the need to remain vigilant to prevent trafficking and to provide remedy to the victims. Belgium remained committed to effectively protect human rights, and fully subscribed to the eradication of contemporary forms of slavery, both internally and at the international level. Respect for labour standards was part of this commitment.

Niger, speaking as a concerned country, welcomed that the report by the Special Rapporteur presented Niger’s efforts to prevent, detect, repress and eradicate contemporary forms of slavery through strong political will, as emphasized by the President of Niger during the recent national independence celebrations. Two national institutions to combat slavery had been established and were now operational. Niger was open to public debates on slavery, and had established a national day of mobilization against human trafficking, which focused last year on religious and traditional practices. The courts were examining more and more cases of slavery. Reparation for the victims of slavery and trafficking sought to ensure their reinsertion into society and to encourage them to file complaints. Victims received free legal aid in order to ensure equal access to justice.

Right of Reply

Sudan, speaking in a right of reply, regretted baseless allegations made by the United States. Sudan had exerted intensive efforts to promote and protect human rights despite the challenges, specifically in the conflict areas. It was regrettable that the United States continued to weaken the human rights system in Sudan by imposing unilateral coercive measures with far reaching negative consequences on human lives.

Bahrain, speaking in a right of reply, said that what Switzerland said on behalf of the group of countries had not been in line with the procedural rules as the High Commissioner had not mentioned Bahrain in his remarks. It was necessary to consult, including via Embassies, rather than disseminate incorrect information. Some countries chose to close eyes to what was really happening in Bahrain.

Japan, speaking in a right of reply, referred to the statement by its Prime Minister from August 2015 that Japan would never forget that there had been women whose dignity and honour had been severely injured in the wars of the twentieth century. Japan would do its best to make the twenty-first century one in which women’s rights would not be violated.

Azerbaijan, speaking in a right of reply, said that Azerbaijan was firm on the road to building a law-abiding society. The national legislation ensured wide opportunities for the independent work of civil society organizations and it was totally inappropriate even to think that people in Azerbaijan were prosecuted for engaging in political processes or for working in the non-government sector.

Egypt, speaking in a right of reply, said that the attempts to misconstrue what was happening in Egypt continued in this Council, adding that it was necessary to know the context in order to understand the events in the country.

Venezuela, speaking in a right of reply, regretted the misinformation which aimed to discredit its entire judicial system. In the United Kingdom, racial segregation continued. It was strange that a country like Venezuela, which complied with its human rights, was accused in a such manner.

China, speaking in a right of reply, stated that two non-governmental organizations had made unsubstantiated claims on the arrest of lawyers in China. There were more than 200,000 registered and practicing lawyers in China today. Lawyers were ardent defenders of the law, and should not be allowed to undermine it. China was a country of the rule of law and its judicial sovereignty and independence were paramount.

Russian Federation, speaking in a right of reply, stated that Crimea was a territory of the Russian Federation, after people there had used their right of self-determination, in line with the United Nations Charter. Any allegations on human rights violations in Crimea were investigated through regular channels of Russia, and perpetrators were brought to justice if needed.

Syria, speaking in a right of reply, said that various speakers had specified that there was terrorism in the Middle East, leading to people fleeing en masse. It was deeply regrettable that the High Commissioner encouraged certain countries to carry out their policies against Syria. Extremism was to be found in Saudi Arabia as well and its regime was not in a position to give lessons to Syria.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement made by the Japanese delegation, said the attitude of Japan had not yet changed. Far from admitting its past crimes, Japan had not done much to provide reparations to the victims of its crimes. Japan’s actions remained far from honest apology. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea strongly urged Japan to abstain from embellishing its past history. It also categorically rejected the provocation made by the Foreign Affairs Minister of the United Kingdom.

Turkey, speaking in a right of reply, responded to the accusations made by the Syrian regime, noting that millions had been killed, tortured and displaced due to the actions of the Syrian regime. Turkey was determined to fight terrorism and extremism. It categorically rejected unfounded allegations that it had not taken measures to prevent the flow of weapons and terrorists through its territory.

Japan, speaking in a second right of reply in response to the statement made by the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, noted that the Government of Japan had strong concerns regarding the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and urged it to pay attention to the recommendations and comments made by the international community in that respect.

Syria, speaking in a second right of reply, said that Turkey was being obstinate and this would not be useful and would not serve to convince the international community. Turkey should stop using this duplicity in its statements.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking in a second right of reply, categorically rejected the allegations made by Japan and said that Japan went too far in the issues of comfort women when it claimed that rape in times of war was not a crime. Japan should settle its past crimes, including kidnapping and forcibly drafting eight million Korean people, forcing more than one million women into sexual slavery, and bringing to justice those responsible for those crimes against humanity.

Saudi Arabia, speaking in a right of reply, said that the Syrian regime had deformed the reality and facts and said that Saudi Arabia did not need to defend itself. Everyone was aware of what the Syrian regime was, the regime which had killed more than 300,000 of its own people and dispersed more than four million. Saudi Arabia aligned itself with the international community in its wish to put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people in order to ensure that international justice prevailed.

Turkey, speaking in a second right of reply, condemned the Syrian regime’s futile attempts to misrepresent the reality. Turkey had been a safe refuge for 1.8 million Syrians who had fled their country. Nobody should question Turkey’s efforts to give back hope to those Syrians, especially children, who had had to abandon their homes.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record