Human Rights Council opens thirty-third regular session

Hears Address by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
 
GENEVA (13 September 2016) - The Human Rights Council this morning opened its thirty-third regular session, hearing a wide-ranging statement by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.
 
High Commissioner Zeid expressed concern over an emerging pattern of the growing refusal of an increasing number of Member States to grant the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, or the human rights mechanisms, access to countries or to specific regions.  The High Commissioner stressed that there was no alternative to working together and committing to collective action in order to solve common problems, in particular terrorism and its main exponent Da’esh, the alienation and frustration of many throughout the world who felt short-changed by poor governance and corruption, and the fact that dangerous xenophobes and bigots were running for office in several well-established democracies.  The Human Rights Council, designed to be more credible, more impartial and more focused on the rights and voices of victims, was growing more polarized, with States increasingly attempting to block or evade human rights scrutiny, claiming that human rights were being misused as a pretext for interference in the affairs of sovereign nations. 
 
The High Commissioner stressed that his Office had no coercive power, and that no activity it undertook could possibly be considered constitutive of a prohibited “intervention”; the Office requested access in order to strengthen national protection systems, establish neutral clarity about the facts on the ground, help States bring their laws and practices in line with international agreements which they had drafted and ratified, and assist in complying with recommendations which States had publicly accepted.  The human rights of all people required collective action; human rights violations would not disappear if a government blocked access to international observers, while efforts to duck or refuse legitimate scrutiny raised an obvious question: “What, precisely, are you hiding from us?”  The High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed that States might shut his Office out, but they would not shut it up, and neither would they blind it – if access was refused, the Office would assume the worst and do its utmost to report as accurately as it could on serious allegations, including through remote monitoring.  Some States continued to cooperate fully, for example the Republic of the Congo, despite the severity of the violations alleged.
 
In contrast, despite repeated requests, Syria had granted no access to the Office or the Commission of Inquiry since the crisis had begun in 2011.  The country, led by a medical doctor, was believed to have gassed its own people, attacked hospitals, bombed civilian neighbourhoods with indiscriminate explosive weapons, and maintained tens of thousands of detainees in inhuman conditions.  The Government, responsible for some of the gravest violations on record in the history of the Council, regularly sent notes verbales to the Office reporting abuses by armed groups, but it offered no possibility whatsoever for independent scrutiny.  
 
Venezuela’s comprehensive denial of access to the High Commissioner’s staff for the past two and a half years was particularly shocking in the light of acute concerns regarding allegations of repression of opposition voices and civil society groups, arbitrary arrests, excessive use of force against peaceful protests, the erosion of the independence of rule of law institutions, and an increasingly widespread hunger and sharply deteriorating health-care.  
 
The Office continued to be concerned about reports of repeated and serious allegations of on-going violations of international law as well as human rights concerns, including civilian deaths, extrajudicial killings and massive displacement in south-east Turkey, where access had not yet been granted, despite the on-going cooperation with Turkish authorities across a number of other topics; the Office had  set up a temporary monitoring capacity based in Geneva, and would continue to inform the Council of its concerns. 
 
In Ethiopia, the Office was deeply concerned about repeated allegations of excessive and lethal use of force against protestors, enforced disappearances, and mass detentions, including of children, as well as by worrying restrictions on civil society, the media and opposition.  The request for access to the Oromia and Amhara regions in order to conduct a human rights assessment had not been granted; the Office welcomed the intention of the Government to conduct its own national investigation into the killings of protestors and stressed the need for an independent, impartial and international effort to affirm or revise the allegations. 
 
The High Commissioner requested the Governments of India and Pakistan to grant an unconditional access to both sides of the line of control, namely the India-Administered Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, in order to conduct an independent, impartial and international assessment of the claims made by the two sides as to the cause for the confrontations and the reported large numbers of people killed and wounded. 
 
Continued armed confrontation between RENAMO and the national army of Mozambique, which had begun almost a year ago, had heightened the levels of violence, and there were reports of mass graves, summary executions, destruction of property, displacement and attacks against civilians.  The Office had requested access for an assessment visit in July and was hoping for a swift response. 
 
In the Gambia, the United Nations had requested clearance to field a joint mission, and urgently assist authorities in maintaining respect for all human rights, in the light of instances of inflammatory speech, alleged violence against protestors in the context of the electoral campaign, and more recently, death in detention, and reported torture and ill-treatment of detainees. 
 
In Crimea, the de facto authorities had not granted the request to open a sub-office of the Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine; the Office would therefore continue to monitor the situation in Crimea remotely, and would continue to issue impartial, independent and trenchant information.
 
Human rights protection was crucial in the context of protracted conflicts and legally unrecognized or disputed territories, where millions of people lived in profound uncertainty.  The High Commissioner expressed his deep concern over the repeated refusals to permit access for his staff to both Abkhazia and South Ossetia by those in effective control, despite continued allegations of violations: killings, arbitrary detentions, torture and ill-treatment and restricted freedom of movement. 
 
The Office had no access to the conflict situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, including since the events of April 2016, and consequently could not verify conflicting claims of human rights violations.  The plight of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people and refugees had not received the kind of human rights scrutiny that it deserved for the past decades. 
 
Discussions with China over the past 11 years regarding an official mission by successive High Commissioners had so far failed to produce an actual commitment to move ahead with a visit.  The High Commissioner remained deeply concerned over reports of continued harassment of human rights lawyers, human rights defenders and their family members, as well as allegations of discrimination, torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearances and deaths in custody of members of ethnic and religious communities.  The Office would like to embark on a genuine working relationship with China in a constructive and committed manner. 
 
Nepal had closed the field offices of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2011 and the engagement with the Government on human rights since then was difficult, despite the serious and chronic human rights challenges that the country continued to face, including the fact that a decade after the civil war, accountability for gross human rights violations was still not being pursued.  
 
Uzbekistan had refused to recognize the regional office for Central Asia in Bishkek for the past 10 years, and had given none of its staff access to the country.  Despite lack of access, the Office continued to document very severe human rights violations in Uzbekistan that deserved far greater attention. 
 
It was regrettable that Armenia had so far not accorded full access to the Office’s presence in Tbilisi, which supported countries in the South Caucasus.  The High Commissioner had therefore been unable to cooperate and engage fully with the Government, its State entities and civil society organizations.
 
It was regrettable that the Dominican Republic had failed to respond to the offer of support and monitoring capacity in regard to forcible movements of people to Haiti, with concerns remaining about deportations which had commenced a year ago. 
 
The High Commissioner noted the continued cooperation of the Burundian authorities with the Office, and expressed concern at the failure of the Government to appear or present replies during the Special Session of the Committee against Torture in July – an unprecedented course of action by any State.  Civil society groups, media and lawyers who had cooperated with the Committee against Torture continued to face the threat of official reprisals, while the Government’s refusal to comply with the Security Council’s request for a police component to monitor the security situation, was deeply disturbing. 
 
The United States had failed to accept the request by the Special Rapporteur on Torture to enter the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and conduct confidential interviews.  Guantanamo had long been a space of reported serious violations, and the evasive tactics of the United States authorities with respect to requests by international human rights mandates were deeply regrettable.
 
Although the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had extended an invitation to the High Commissioner to visit the country, it had refused to engage on the modalities of the trip.  The remote monitoring indicated that grave human rights concerns persisted throughout the country, including pervasive restrictions on all public freedoms, a vast and brutal prison system, torture, and violations of the right to food and other economic and social rights. 
 
The Office had not been given access to Iran since 2013; the offers to begin a technical dialogue on the death penalty had been systematically overlooked, which was particularly regrettable given the reports of fundamental problems with the administration of criminal justice, and the continued execution of large numbers of people, including juveniles.
 
Currently, Belarus, Eritrea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria refused to cooperate in any way with country-specific mechanisms; Israel had a long record of refusing to cooperate with most of them, in terms of allowing access to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  The High Commissioner stressed that country-specific mandates ensured an expert, impartial and intensive monitoring process that kept information flowing to the Council and to the world, and that the Council’s clear and universal mandate to address human rights violations was not conditional on the approval of specific governments.  
 
High Commissioner Zeid further expressed his concern about harassment and arrests of human rights defenders and political activists in Bahrain, and legislation which enabled the revocation of citizenship without due process. 
 
He further encouraged the Philippines to extend an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and stressed that empowering police forces to shoot to kill any individual whom they claimed to suspect of drug crimes, with or without evidence, undermined justice. 
 
In Yemen, the national investigation effort had not been able to provide the impartial and wide-ranging inquiry that was required by serious allegations of violations and abuse, and the High Commissioner recommended a comprehensive inquiry by an international independent body.
 
In closing, the High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed that the Human Rights Council was the torchbearer for the consistent and equitable protection of human rights around the world, as it stood for principles which endorsed the freedom of people everywhere.  The human rights norms empowered people to demand governments which served them, instead of exploiting them; economic systems that enabled them to live in dignity; and the right to participate in every decision that impacted their lives.  Those were the essential steps which would lead to greater mutual respect and more sustainable development and justice, within a world of greater safety.  In the coming decade, the Council would maintain its credibility, and further develop its reputation for consistent action, by clearly upholding the equal value of all human rights, and their equal validity across all geographies, all political systems, and all societies.
 
The general debate on the High Commissioner’s oral update will start at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 September.
 
The Council will next hold a clustered interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and with the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.

 __________

For use of the information media; not an official record