MIDDAY
 
Hears Statements by High-level Dignitaries from the United Kingdom and Ukraine
 
GENEVA (16 June 2016) - The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting concluded a clustered interactive dialogue with Monica Pinto, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, and Virginia Dandan, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity.  At the beginning of the meeting, it heard addresses from Baroness Anelay, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, and from Sergiy Kyslytsya Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. 
 
Baroness Anelay said that if the first 10 years of the Human Rights Council had been about strengthening human rights within the United Nations, the next 10 years must be about the impact it had on the lives of individuals.  She asked if they could use existing mechanisms better.  This meant supporting Special Procedures and keeping the number of resolutions in check.  This would ensure that the focus remained on those subject to, and at risk of, the worst violations and abuses.  Those most vulnerable at times of conflict.  They must also strengthen early warning capacities so that they could prevent violations from happening, rather than just dealing with the consequences.  Empowering women was too important an issue to be left to chance and all should promote women’s full participation and leadership in political and economic life. 
 
Mr. Kyslytsya said that the decision to create the Human Rights Council had been right.  There was an unexhausted potential in this body.  Those who criticized its “deficiency” had to look first at their own deeds, and ask themselves whether they always had a sincere wish to act in the best interests of the promotion and protection of rights.  The Human Rights Council had to avoid isolation from other international institutions.  Human rights were transversal and universal and any activity comprised the human rights dimension.  Therefore, more synergy with the General Assembly, as well as the Security Council, was needed.  As a country suffering from the Russian military aggression and grave human rights violations caused by it, Ukraine understood from its own experience how much work lay ahead in the areas of prevention and protection of fundamental freedoms, strengthening the comprehensive response to the threats to security and human rights. 
 
The clustered interactive dialogue on the independence of judges and lawyers and on human rights and international solidarity started on Wednesday 15 June, when the two Experts presented their reports.  A summary can be read here. 
 
In her concluding remarks, Ms. Pinto said that indicators on national judicial institutions would be based on already existing texts, including on indicators developed at regional levels.  The indicators would be both universal and adaptable to the different justice systems.  They would be a useful tool for mapping information on different judicial systems and for better knowledge on reforms needed. 
 
Ms. Dandan, in her concluding remarks, said that issues did persist with some countries on translating the principle of international solidarity into a human right and thus the proposed draft would most likely not enjoy consensus.  She would draft the text of the Declaration with careful consideration to respond to the requirements of many and to address many issues raised today, including non-State actors, terrorism and climate change. 
 
During the interactive dialogue, speakers continued to express interest in the Special Rapporteur’s proposal to develop a set of indicators on national judicial institutions, and asked for further clarification with regard to the modalities for that process.  Speakers expressed their support for the work of the Independent Expert and her consultation process, and underlined the importance of international solidarity in addressing new challenges, such as terrorism, violent extremism, migration and climate change. 
 
Speaking were Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Argentina, Cuba, Belgium, Maldives, Qatar, Venezuela, South Africa, China, Russian Federation, Latvia, Nigeria, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, El Salvador, Panama, Philippines, Togo and India. 
 
The following non-governmental organizations also spoke: International Commission of Jurists in a joint statement with International Service for Human Rights, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, China NGO Network for International Exchanges, International Bar Association, Indian Council of South America, Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII (joint statement), Asian Legal Resource Centre, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations (joint statement), Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Asociación Civil, Human Rights House Foundation, Association Solidarité Internationale pour l’Afrique, Association Burkinabé pour la Survie de l’Enfance, Association des étudiants tamouls de France, and World Muslim Congress.
 
At 3 p.m., the Council will hold the second part of its annual full-day discussion on the human rights of women, with a panel discussion focusing on women's rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: delivering on the promise to leave no one behind. 
 
Statements by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom and the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
 
Baroness ANELAY,Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, said that if the first 10 years of the Human Rights Council had been about strengthening human rights within the United Nations, the next 10 years must be about the impact it had on the lives of individuals.  She asked if they could use existing mechanisms better.  This meant supporting Special Procedures and keeping the number of resolutions in check.  This would ensure that the focus remained on those subject to, and at risk of, the worst violations and abuses.  Those most vulnerable at times of conflict.  They also must strengthen early warning capacities so that they could prevent violations from happening, rather than just dealing with the consequences.  They must make sure that working methods were fit for purpose, so that they could take robust action when necessary, not only in other countries, but also at home, when they fell short of the standards that they promoted as States and institutions. 
 
Gender equality had to play an important part of this, said Baroness Anelay, welcoming the Human Rights Council’s focus on women and girls, first, because women and girls were among those most at risk of violations and abuse, and second, because societies could only reach their full and complete potential when women and girls were included.  The international community needed to shoulder its responsibility to end the use of sexual violence in conflict situations, she said, building the capacities of security forces to prevent abuse from happening.  Empowering women was too important an issue to be left to chance and all should promote women’s full participation and leadership in political and economic life.  Only by working together and adopting a comprehensive approach could the international community succeed. 
 
SERGIY KYSLYTSYA,Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said that the decision to create the Human Rights Council had been right.  There was an unexhausted potential in this body.  Those who criticized its “deficiency” had to look first at their own deeds, and ask themselves whether they always had a sincere wish to act in the best interests of the promotion and protection of rights.  The Human Rights Council had to avoid isolation from other international institutions.  Human rights were transversal and universal and any activity comprised the human rights dimension.  Therefore, more synergy with the General Assembly, as well as the Security Council, was needed.
 
As a country suffering from the Russian military aggression and grave human rights violations caused by it, Ukraine understood from its own experience how much work lay ahead in the areas of promotion and protection of fundamental freedoms, strengthening the comprehensive response to the threats to security and human rights.  One of the most dynamically developing regions of the world, Africa, was affected by severe hardships, including extreme poverty and appalling forms of terrorism such as Boko Haram, which made achieving universally recognized human rights standards for many countries of the region incredibly difficult.  Nevertheless the international community had to look at Africa not as a burden but as a potential.  The reason for this was the youngest population in the world. 
 
An effective response was needed to current disasters wherever they occurred, protecting people, especially those that were multiply affected, including internally displaced persons.  The Crimean Tatars, the indigenous population of the illegally occupied Crimea, were being targeted by the occupying authorities, and were often forced to flee their native land and become internally displaced persons.  Despite the severity of the current migration crisis in the world, migrants seemed more secure than internally displaced persons.  It was time to launch a meaningful discussion about the elaboration of a comprehensive international instrument to cover the protection of the rights of internally displaced persons.
 
Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the Independent Expert on International Solidarity
 
Kuwait highlighted the importance of international solidarity to combat terrorism and violent extremism, and to address migration.  Kuwait underlined that populations under foreign occupation also needed international solidarity. Kyrgyzstan underlined the importance of transparency in the process of elaborating indicators on the independence of judges and lawyers. Argentina highlighted the importance of the independence of judges and lawyers, and welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation for the development of indicators for measuring such independence. Cuba welcomed progress achieved towards the elaboration of a declaration on international solidarity, and would be submitting a draft resolution on this issue at this Council’s session.  Cuba asked the Special Rapporteur to clarify how she would elaborate indicators on the independence of judges and lawyers. Belgium asked how the development of indicators by the Special Rapporteur would be linked to the work of the United Nations Statistical Commission and fit in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Maldives said that its new Constitution laid out the foundations for an independent judiciary, and recognized the importance of human rights training for judges and lawyers.  The elaboration of indicators by the Special Rapporteur should be free of international politicization. Qatar welcomed the Independent Expert’s efforts to reach a consensus on the draft declaration on international solidarity, and underlined the importance of international solidarity and cooperation in light with new challenges, such as security, migration and climate change, and with respect to the sovereignty of States.   
 
Venezuela asked how the human rights-related indicators of access to justice would be developed and stressed that justice must not be too distant or too costly for the people to access.  Regional consultations on the draft declaration on the right to international solidarity had been held with success. South Africa shared the concern about the consistent failure of international mechanisms to address key challenges to humanity such as climate change, which disproportionately affected countries with limited responsibilities, capacities and resources. China had deepened the reform of the judicial system to improve judicial responsibility and promote transparency, and guarantees were in place to ensure judicial independence.  International solidarity did not include only international aid and humanitarian assistance but also meant democratization of international relations, on the basis of the respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Russia drew attention to the situation in relation to the independence of judges and security of lawyers in Ukraine, who were under constant threat of violence by radical troops and the State authorities. Latvia asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the envisaged procedure to develop the indicators of judicial independence and how civil society and other stakeholders would be involved in this process. Nigeria recognized that any attempt to interfere in the judicial process would undermine judicial independence and impartiality, while judges must keep social peace by delivering justice impartially and on equal footing for all.  
 
Tunisia said the independence of judges and layers was a precondition for equitable justice, which required an impartial judiciary, with guarantees for a fair trial.   Within the transitional democratic process of Tunisia, the Constitution guaranteed the independence of the judiciary.  Bangladesh said international solidarity was a right to development which required national and international efforts to eliminate hunger, poverty, and diseases in the world.  It was therefore necessary to ensure the transfer of technology, to bridge the knowledge gap.  Bolivia had a plural legal system recognizing the Campesino justice systems, and believed it was more useful to focus on local capacities and change the system inherited from the colonial system.  The principle of international solidarity was of utmost importance.  El Salvador said that international solidarity could be defined as a union of social cohesion with goals to ensure the order and the very survival of society.  Fundamental causes of problems had to be tackled.  Panama said solidarity as a principle in its most basic meaning referred to the commitment that each had towards each other as a society.  At the State level it was the quest for partners in order to bring about justice and equality.  Philippines noted the importance of an independent and impartial judicial system to guarantee the people’s rights and rule of law.  International solidarity positively led to the fulfilment of all rights, including economic, social and cultural rights.
 
Togo expressed its support for the independence of judges and lawyers, which was guaranteed in the Togolese Constitution and national legislation.  The Government had committed to a large programme of reform and modernization of its justice system, which had strengthened the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. India also expressed attachment to the independence of judges and lawyers, and presented its domestic efforts to ensure such independence and strengthen access to judges for all, including vulnerable groups.  India supported the efforts by the Independent Expert on International Solidarity to further conceptualize this concept. 
 
International Commission of Jurists, in a joint statement withInternational Service for Human Rights, condemned the use of torture and corruption as violations of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in a number of countries. Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain raised concerns about violations of international fair trial standards in Bahrain, including the use of confessions obtained through torture and acts of intimidation and reprisals against human rights lawyers and their families, referring specifically to the case of prominent lawyer Mohamed al-Tajer. China NGO Network for International Exchanges said that China was in the process of reforming its judiciary, and said that the independence of lawyers should be relative and respect existing laws.  The international community should look at the legal processes in developing countries with a long-term view and without politicization. International Bar Association fully supported the Special Rapporteur’s endeavour to develop universal indicators on the independence of the judiciary, and called upon States to ensure that national targets and indicators duly aligned with international indicators and international principles.
 
Indian Council of South America said that its organization continued to be denied access to justice and asked whether the Special Rapporteur would accept to hear the claims of the people of Alaska and deal with them appropriately.
 
Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, on behalf of severals NGOs1,that there was a great need to move from the principle of international solidarity to the recognition of that right, and this step forward must be made in order to address the key challenges of climate change, migration flows and others. Asian Legal Resource Centre wondered what meaningful purpose independent justice institutions could serve if the police did not arrest and detain the accused and if prosecutors did not investigate crimes, as was the case in many Asian countries.International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, on behalf of severals NGOs2, said that despite knowing the legal status of the Western Sahara, the Special Rapporteur made no effort to analyse the negative impact of the occupation on the judiciary and access to justice, while the Independent Expert should have mentioned in her report that the natural resources of Western Sahara belonged to its people. Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Asociación Civil said that Mexico would be soon adopting a new justice system, but warned that the current prosecutorial system, which promoted impunity, would continue to hear the cases linked to the war on drugs, which would further compound the human rights crisis in the country. Human Rights House Foundation informed about the harassment of judges and lawyers in several countries, including in Azerbaijan, and said that the harassment and prosecution of lawyers defending or protecting human rights defenders or human rights lawyers had increased over the past several years.
 
Association Solidarité Internationale pour l’Afrique said that people had been intimidated before the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Sri Lanka, and that as judges and lawyers often became targets of an oppressive regime, Sri Lankan judges were often targeted with disciplinary measures. Association Burkinabé pour la Survie de l’Enfance identified himself as a lawyer from South Africa assisting many Tamil-speaking exiles in advancing the cause of a truly independent judiciary in Sri Lanka, which since 1948 had denied rights to the minority Tamil population. Association des étudiants tamoulsde France expressed belief that judges were the main human rights defenders  in democracies and were targets in oppressive regimes, adding that Tamil lawyers were subjected to intimidation by Sri Lankan authorities, and calling for an international independent investigation, as the Tamil people had no access to justice. World Muslim Congress said the Special Rapporteur had pointed out that legal power protecting prosecutors became useless if there was no commitment to enforce it, adding that in Jammu and Kashmir there was no independence of the judiciary.
 
Concluding Remarks
 
MONICA PINTO,Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in her concluding remarks, thanked the speakers for the interest they had shown in her proposal for national judicial indicators.  These indicators, she said, would be based on already existing texts, including on indicators developed at regional levels.  She would hold consultations with a variety of relevant stakeholders for their elaboration.  The indicators would be both universal and adaptable to the different justice systems.  They would be a useful tool for States, judges, associations and United Nations bodies, not only for evaluation, but rather for mapping information on different judicial systems and for better knowledge on reforms needed.  Indicators would be significant to bring to line some trends within certain proceedings that led to impunity.  States would have to ensure that these indicators could be drafted without politicization, she concluded. 
 
VIRGINIA DANDAN,Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said in her concluding remarks that it was important to revisit the context and recalled that the idea of international solidarity had evolved positively over time into an explicitly recognized element of social cohesion that was accepted without question at national levels.  However, there were some questions about its elevation at the international level, and there were views that difficulties arose not from the limited legal framework but from poor understanding of the concept and the lack of political will.  The Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity would not radically alter the relationships, but issues did persist with some countries on translating the principle into a human right and thus the proposed draft would most likely not enjoy consensus, but the Independent Expert hoped that it would open the mind to consider the right beyond the narrow view of self or political interests.
 
Turning to the questions raised by the delegations, Ms. Dandan said that during the consultations there were indeed no doubts about the translation of the principle into a right, but rather that participants raised difficulties in doing so.  The next step in the process was the consolidation of inputs received not only via regional consultations but also via the Expert’s bilateral contacts and dialogues with many partners and stakeholders.  Referring to the proposed Humanitarian Corridor in the Mediterranean Sea, the Independent Expert said that it was impressive to see civil society groups partnering with the Italian Government to assist migrants from death at sea and protect them from trafficking and exploitation.  This was a very good example of what countries and civil society organizations were doing, without fanfare and addressing the real and concrete needs.  Ms. Dandan reaffirmed that she would draft the text of the Declaration with careful consideration of language which would seek to respond to the requirements of many; it would also address many issues that the delegates raised in the discussion today, including non-State actors, terrorism, climate change, positive examples from countries and region, and others.

_________

1. Joint statement:  Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII; Foundation for GAIA; International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education (OIDEL); Edmund Rice International Limited; Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice delle Salesiane di Don Bosco; Lucis Trust Association; Mouvement International d'Apostolate des Milieux Sociaux Independants; Pax Christi International, International Catholic Peace Movement; Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc., The; Association Points-Cœur; International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education and Development – VIDES; Fondazione Marista per la Solidarietà Internazionale ONLUS; Company of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul; and New Humanity.
 
2. Joint statement: International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations; American Association of Jurists; France Libertes : Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY); and International Fellowship of Reconciliation.

 __________

For use of the information media; not an official record