Human Rights Council holds interactive dialogue with mandate holders on human rights defenders and on torture

AFTERNOON
 
GENEVA (2 March 2017) - The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a clustered interactive dialogue with Michel Forst, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, and with Nils Melzer, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
 
Mr. Forst, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said that over the past years, the threats and constraints faced by human rights defenders around the world had been steadily growing and changing, and that in many countries, it remained extremely dangerous or challenging for human rights defenders to operate freely and openly.  The international community needed to be more proactive and creative in dealing with threats which targeted individuals, and through them, entire societies.  Addressing the rampant level of impunity for the violence committed against human rights defenders should be a matter of priority.  He spoke about his country visits to Hungary and Azerbaijan.
 
Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture, said that the first priority was to reaffirm the absolute and universal prohibition of all forms of torture, and clarify the meaning of the terms “torture” and of “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” in light of the evolving international environment.  The mandate would contribute to the development of a set of universal standards for non-coercive interviewing methods, conduct a global survey on how States implemented safeguards to prevent the infliction of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on persons deprived of their liberty, and take up torture and cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment in the context of forced migration, in extra-custodial settings, and at the hands of non-State actors.  He spoke about country visits to Turkey, Mauritania, Sri Lanka and Mexico. 
 
Hungary, Azerbaijan, Mauritania and Sri Lanka spoke as countries concerned by the presented reports.
 
Speakers in the interactive dialogue agreed that there was lack of awareness and knowledge about the work of human rights defenders, and welcomed the proposed approach to their protection which would include the analysis of root causes of violence and discrimination against them and the fight against impunity.  The statistics did not lie: human rights defenders were being silenced and civil society was under pressure, with national security being used as a justification to restrict freedoms and rights.  Other speakers said that those who jeopardized security and public order could not and should not be camouflaged under any legal and legitimate human rights activities. 
 
On torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment, delegates recalled the obligation of States in eradicating acts of torture and stressed the crucial role of national human rights institutions in this context, including through visiting detention sites, training officials, investigating allegations of torture and raising societal awareness.  Delegates welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s proposed focus on torture and cruel and degrading treatment or punishment in the context of large movements of refugees and migrants, including by terrorist groups, and asked about the process for the development of guidelines for interviewing. 
 
Taking the floor in the clustered interactive dialogue were Honduras, European Union, El Salvador on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Tunisia on behalf of the African Group, Czechia, Slovenia, Finland, France, Poland, United Kingdom, Egypt, Switzerland, Brazil, Germany, Russia, Sierra Leone, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Australia, Netherlands, Cuba, State of Palestine, Peru, Ecuador, China, Italy, Spain, Colombia, Iran, Austria, Morocco, Pakistan, South Africa, Georgia, Maldives, Chile, United States, Bahrain, Botswana, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Turkey, Armenia, Iraq, Norway, Republic of Korea, Ireland and Portugal.
 
Israel and Azerbaijan spoke in right of reply.   
 
The Council will resume its work at 9 a.m. on Friday, 3 March to hold its annual debate on the rights of persons with disabilities.  The clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on torture will resume at noon.
 
Documentation
 
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (A/HRC/34/52).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders - Observations on communications transmitted to Governments and replies received (A/HRC/34/52/Add.1).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders – mission to Hungary (A/HRC/34/52/Add.2).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders – mission to Azerbaijan (A/HRC/34/52/Add.3).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders – comments by Hungary (A/HRC/34/52/Add.4).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders – comments by Azerbaijan (A/HRC/34/52/Add.5).
 
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (A/HRC/34/54).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (A/HRC/34/54/Add.1) – mission to Mauritania.
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (A/HRC/34/54/Add.2) – mission to Sri Lanka.
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (A/HRC/34/54/Add.3).
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (A/HRC/34/54/Add.4) – mission to Mexico.
 
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (A/HRC/34/54/Add.5) – comments by Mexico.

Presentation of the Reports
 
MICHEL FORST Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, expressed regret that the report that everyone had received was not the one that he had prepared.  It had been modified without his consent to make it an impersonal report, which he regretted profoundly.  Over the past years, the threats and constraints faced by human rights defenders around the world had been steadily growing and changing.  In many countries, it remained extremely dangerous or challenging for human rights defenders to operate freely and openly.  He recalled the hundreds of defenders killed in the past year and expressed frustration that those lives could have been spared.  In particular, he was deeply disturbed at the persistent and steadily increasing pattern of attacks and killings of defenders who opposed the interests of powerful businesses, local politicians and elites, as well as armed and criminal groups.  He also highlighted the increasing acts of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders for their cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.  In that regard, he welcomed the appointment of a focal point on reprisals, Andrew Gilmour.  Today, more than ever, the international community needed to be more proactive and creative in dealing with threats which targeted individuals, and through them, entire societies.  Addressing the rampant level of impunity for the violence committed against defenders should be a matter of priority.  Identifying institutional gaps and the factors feeding impunity was needed and political will was also necessary to take preventive action and carry out investigations when needed.  Too often, statements and commitments were not translated into concrete measures on the ground, he said, urging for follow-up on the implementation of human rights commitments.   Human rights defenders were agents of change, agents of development for countries and should be praised for their work.
 
Speaking about his February 2016 visit to Hungary, he said human rights defenders in Hungary could work in a safe and secure but tense environment.  It was alarming to see human rights defenders operating in an environment that was increasingly polarized and politicized.  They were exposed to serious difficulties and many were deprived of sources of funding by the authorities because of the changes of rules on non-governmental organizations receiving funding from abroad.  This was an increasing trend seen in other countries too.
 
In September 2016, he carried out a visit to Azerbaijan.  After carefully examining information received from the Government and from civil society and other stakeholders, he had to say that human rights defenders were not in a position to operate in a safe and propitious environment.  They were increasingly at risk and did not feel themselves safe because of restrictive legislation, criminalization of their activities, and lack of effective access to justice.  They faced campaigns of denigration which sought to discredit their work.
 
NILS MELZER, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, addressing the Council for the first time, outlined his vision and plans for the mandate during his tenure.  He said his first priority was to reaffirm the absolute and universal prohibition of all forms of torture, as well as to clarify the meaning of the terms “torture” and of “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” in light of the evolving international environment.  He would contribute actively to the development of a set of universal standards for non-coercive interviewing methods.  It was also his intention to conduct a global survey on how States implemented safeguards to prevent the infliction of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on persons deprived of their liberty.  He said he would take up torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the context of forced migration, in extra-custodial settings, and at the hands of non-State actors.  Irregular migration was increasingly criminalized, and his work would be guided, inter alia, by the 2016 New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants.  Regarding non-State actors, he said they were increasingly engaged in conduct that adversely interfered with human rights, and noted that to achieve its original purpose, human rights law must protect every human being from violations.
 
Mr. Melzer reviewed his first fact-finding visit to Turkey, and welcomed the unequivocal commitment of the Turkish authorities to a zero-tolerance policy on torture.  But there was a “significant” disconnection between the official policy and the current reality on the ground.  He noted that his predecessor had undertaken country visits to Mauritania and to Sri Lanka.  With regard to the former, he noted that torture and ill-treatment were still a regular occurrence, and that severe overcrowding, and insufficient nutrition and water were among the main factors affecting the conditions of inmates.  On Sri Lanka, a “culture of torture” persisted after the conflict, and conditions of detention amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.  A country visit to Mexico had revealed that torture and ill-treatment in Mexico remained generalized, a situation exacerbated by impunity.  He considered it a priority for his mandate to continue to transmit urgent appeals and other communications to States on behalf of individuals reported to be at risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.  The worldwide battle against torture could not be won by his mandate alone, and States, civil society, and international and regional anti-torture mechanisms had to join forces to enforce the absolute prohibition of torture and any other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 
 
Statements by Concerned Countries
 
Hungary, speaking as a concerned country, said that the work of human rights defenders was essential for the advancement of democracy and the rule of law around the world, and Hungary remained deeply concerned about reprisals against defenders that took various forms like threats, prohibition from leaving the country or physical attacks.  Hungary was delighted that the Special Rapporteur had concluded that overall human rights defenders were able to operate safely in Hungary.  However, the report at certain points gave an unfounded and misleading impression of the situation in Hungary, while the lack of taking into consideration written replies by the Government had affected the report’s accuracy.  The principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment of all persons were particularly protected by the law and the Constitution of Hungary, and therefore no human rights defenders were prosecuted or discriminated on the basis of their opinions or beliefs. 
 
Azerbaijan, speaking as a concerned country, said that the visit of the Special Rapporteur was an important step to deepen cooperation between Azerbaijan and the relevant United Nations mechanism.  However, positive developments of Azerbaijan had not been taken into consideration and many positive assessments by the United Nations related to human rights protection in Azerbaijan had not been mentioned in the report, thus creating a distorted picture of the present day situation.  The claims about the political system were completely false and out of context and Azerbaijan was of the opinion that the Special Rapporteur had overstepped his mandate.  The report was one-sided, biased and unbalanced, and Azerbaijan therefore rejected this report.
 
Mauritania, speaking as a concerned country, said Mauritania was committed to putting an end to torture and had set out a national preventative mechanism for torture that was represented at the session.  The Special Rapporteur against torture had noted a number of important measures taken by the Government and had made constructive recommendations.  Mauritania was committed to a judiciary in which no one was subjected to torture during interrogation.  With regard to the excessive use of force toward groups, police action was needed to maintain public order and was proportionate during demonstrations.  The Government was also committed to combatting violence and had introduced a law on gender-based violence that stepped up punishment.  Combatting torture was a priority for Mauritania and it was working with civil society organizations on the issue.
 
Sri Lanka, speaking as a concerned country, said the report had acknowledged the positive developments taking place in Sri Lanka, including the protection of human rights in the country.  The National Unity Government was firm in its commitment to a zero-tolerance policy on torture.  Taking note of the report, whose end objective was to prevent torture, a national human rights action plan had been approved by Government Ministers.  The prevention of terrorism act sought to effectively and comprehensively respond to contemporary manifestations of terrorism.  Sri Lanka reiterated its commitment to continued cooperation with the human rights Special Procedure mandate holders.

Interactive Dialogue
 
Honduras agreed with the Special Rapporteur that 20 years on, the role of human rights defenders was still unknown and welcomed the approach of the Special Rapporteur to the protection of defenders, which included an analysis of the root causes of violence and the fight against impunity.  European Union asked how best to proceed toward widening the protection space for victims of torture and cruel and degrading treatment, and also asked how best to build greater awareness about the work of human rights defenders and increase their visibility while ensuring their protection.  El Salvador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said that the clarification of the terms of the absolute prohibition of torture would be very useful, particularly in the context of large flows of migrants and refugees and violations committed by non-State actors.  Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, recalled the obligation of States to eradicate acts of torture; in this aspect national human rights institutions played a crucial role by visiting detention sites, training officials, investigating allegations of torture and raising societal awareness.  The Special Rapporteur’s focus on the torture of refugees and migrants, and by terrorist groups was welcome.  Czechia shared concern about the continued rise in the number of human rights defenders killed throughout the world and noted that restrictions on freedom of expression were often the first warning sign.  The fight against torture was one of the priorities and Czechia would support the Special Rapporteur’s work on torture in the context of refugee and migrant movements.  It was unacceptable that human rights defenders still faced threats of discrimination and violence, said Slovenia and stressed the role of human rights education in raising the visibility of human rights defenders and recognizing their work.
 
Finland said it was concerned about increasing attempts to thwart the work of human rights defenders in many countries.  They were particularly vulnerable when working on taboo subjects such as women and reproductive rights.  France welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, supported the renewal of his mandate, and highlighted the attacks, threats and reprisals against human rights defenders noted in the report as well as the lack of response by some States.  France was committed to combatting torture and to reaching universal ratification of the United Nations Convention against Torture by 2024.  Poland said that the promotion and protection of human rights defenders called for the joint effort, commitment and action of the international community.  Business and human rights issues were high amongst Poland’s priorities and it was in the process of developing a national action plan on the issue.  United Kingdom said it remained committed to its international obligations and noted that its investigative technique, the “peace model”, was cited as a model by the Special Rapporteur’s predecessor.  The United Kingdom welcomed the report and commended continued efforts in drawing attention to the difficulties and threats that human defenders faced.
 
Egypt noted a tendency to use definition of a new category of “human rights defenders” not based on consensus.  Human rights defenders had to respect national laws and procedures.  As for torture, Egypt attached great importance to the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.  Switzerland expressed concern over the use of torture in the name of national security and combatting terrorism.  It asked about the cooperation with and assistance to Andrew Gilmore, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, with respect to the protection of human rights defenders.  Brazil underscored the importance of universal ratification of the International Convention on Torture.  Brazil reaffirmed its commitment to align public security with international standards and norms, and the call to examine torture in the context of migratory flows.  As for human rights defenders, they should be provided with full protection.  Germany asked the Special Rapporteur about the greatest obstacles and challenges to the adoption of holistic measures for the protection of human rights defenders.   Russian Federation criticized the Special Rapporteur’s plans to conduct a multifaceted study on human rights defenders, noting that those issues had long been studied.  A topic that should be studied instead was human rights defenders’ activity in the overthrow of democratically elected governments.  Sierra Leone noted that the role of the defenders of marginalized and voiceless communities should not be understated.  Strengthening of the rule of law and consolidating implementation of good practices would foster a sustainable and more easily quantifiable protection.
 
Denmark said that the ratification of the Convention against Torture was a necessary step in generating political will to prohibit and eradicate torture and asked about the process for the development of guidelines for interviewing.  What was the most critical threat to the work of human rights defenders and what could the Council do to support the Special Rapporteur’s work?  Liechtenstein was disturbed by the intimidation, threats and reprisals against a growing number of human rights defenders around the world and asked about emerging trends in attacks on human rights defenders.  Mexico highlighted the national legal initiative to prevent the crime of torture in line with international standards, and categorically rejected all violence against human rights defenders who were a crucial part of a democracy society.  Australia said that defenders of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights faced particularly high risk of attacks and asked how coalitions for sexual and reproductive rights could support the Special Rapporteur’s work.  Netherlands said that statistics did not lie and that human rights defenders were being silenced and civil society was under pressure, with national security being used as a justification to restrict freedoms and rights.  What specific measures could be used to offer more emergency and long-term protection to human rights defenders nationally and internationally?  Belgium shared the assessment on the need to reaffirm the universal character of the prohibition of torture.  Special Rapporteurs were the eyes and ears of the Council, and human rights defenders were key to open and vibrant societies and democracy, and they helped States to fulfil their national and international commitments.
 
Cuba asked the Special Rapporteur to explain in detail paragraphs 41 to 43 of the report, including how to avoid duplication of the work done by other Special Procedures.  It also asked for more details on paragraph 64 and how the banks in particular could help in the protection of human rights defenders.  State of Palestine said that Israel had used torture in prisons for interrogative purposes and noted that Palestinian and Israeli non-governmental organizations had faced intimidation and threats by Israel.  Palestine asked the Special Rapporteur: given that torture was not integrated into Israeli legislation, how could it hold the country to account?  Peru expressed satisfaction that the Special Rapporteur would be visiting Peru later this year and believed this visit would contribute to greater awareness of the role of human rights defenders in society.  Ecuador highlighted the challenges and risks facing human rights defenders and said it agreed that long-term systemic measures were needed to mitigate the risks they faced.  In particular, it looked forward to further discussion by the Special Rapporteur with regard to the violations of human rights by non-state actors.
 
China stated that “human rights defenders” lacked a clear and unified definition as countries had different views on who they were.  Some individuals used that term as a cover to cause unrest, and they ought to be brought to justice.  As for torture, China was consistently opposed to it.  Italy opposed any discrimination against women human rights defenders.  What steps should be taken to develop national and regional human rights defenders’ networks?  As for torture, Italy asked about the ongoing review process of the Istanbul Protocol.  Spain highlighted the greater visibility given to the most vulnerable human rights defenders, such as women and persons with disabilities, as well as environmental defenders.   Colombia recognized the contribution of human rights defenders.  Despite the progress made to ensure a conducive environment for their work, challenges and threats to them remained.
 
Remarks by the Special Rapporteurs
 
MICHEL FORST, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said that the support and the political backing of States for the mandate was extremely important.  The definition of human rights defenders was a difficult issue that was raised by many, some challenging the definition.  Mr. Forst said that this issue had been discussed for more than 20 years and that the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders provided guidance on it.  For him, human rights defenders were defined by what they were doing, not by which organization they belonged to.  Many countries regrettably wanted to narrow the definition of human rights defenders to those belonging to certain approved organizations.  The most pressing issue was to strengthen the protection of human rights defenders, and to address the situation in a number of States that vilified human rights defenders rather that recognized their valuable contribution.  Many speakers had raised the issue of reprisals, said the Special Rapporteur, and confirmed that many defenders were facing reprisals for their cooperation with the United Nations or regional human rights mechanisms.  Mr. Forst would send all his communications on the matter of reprisals to the Assistant Secretary-General Andrew Gilmore, who had recently received a mandate to receive, consider and respond to allegations of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders and other civil society actors engaging with the United Nations. 
 
Ways must be found to increase and improve the protection of women human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur highlighted the positive role of the Netherlands in this regard.  The next report would deal with human rights defenders addressing business-related issues, said Mr. Forst, and would focus on countries where business enterprises were based; the Special Rapporteur would work with companies to raise their awareness about the impact on human rights defenders and the development of communities where they operated, and to devise mechanisms to protect human rights defenders.
 
NILS MELZER, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said he would continue to emphasise that victims had a right to redress and compensation.  In terms of widening the protection space, this could include situations of migration-related violence and violence at the hands of non-state actors.  Concerning paragraph 21 of the report, he said he fully supported the full ratification of all relevant treaties and would continue to push for that in his work.  However, since his mandate was not convention-based, he wanted to push for the pragmatic elevation of standards in practice even beforehand.   Touching upon the Istanbul Protocol, he said they were at a very early stage and would need a comprehensive consultation process that involved States.   Due to his mandate’s lack of resources, he could not take the lead or provide more information at this point.  In terms of how to improve synergies between various stakeholders, he acknowledged that some of his thematic priorities would bear the risk of duplication.  In that regard, they needed to work together on various work streams, and this applied to other mandates as well.  He urged the international community not to enter into a dialogue into torture methods that had been outlawed for decades and not to reconsider them as part of counterterrorism efforts.  In the current landscape, they must all join forces and apply their energy to prevent torture.  They collectively bore responsibility to make it a success as failure was truly not an option.
 
Interactive Dialogue
 
Iran warned that those who jeopardized security and public order could not and should not be camouflaged under any legal and legitimate human rights activities.  Human rights defenders were bound by national laws and regulations.  Austria underlined the role of human rights defenders in highlighting the misconduct of governments.  It expressed concern over the increasing use of torture in the name of national security.  Morocco shared the Special Rapporteur’s view on the need for the protection of human rights defenders.   However, the concept too often lacked clarity.  As for torture, it expressed support for the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. 
 
Pakistan said the reports reaffirmed the priorities of the mandates, and concurred with the Special Rapporteur that torture negated the principle of human dignity.  Pakistan had an illustrious history of people who had made contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights.  South Africa expressed concern at the impression created that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders had not been effective over the past three years.  Georgia said human rights defenders were often the subject of reprisals, and the role of the Special Rapporteur was therefore very important, and asked which specific risks women human rights defenders faced.  Maldives said human rights defenders needed to be protected and provided with a social context that protected their role, adding that impunity for attacks on human rights defenders could not be tolerated.   
 
Chile agreed on the need to reaffirm the absolute prohibition of torture and asked the Special Rapporteur how he would address torture in the context of vulnerable individuals such as refugees or migrants.  United States remained deeply concerned about continued acts of reprisal or violence against human rights defenders around the world and wished to hear more about the provision of technical assistance to States to train police officers on those issues.  Reaffirming the absolute prohibition of torture, the United States asked the Special Rapporteur how he would engage with States, civil society and other stakeholders in implementing the priorities he had indicated.  Bahrain highlighted the commitment to the rules of participation of civil society organizations in the work of the United Nations and said that the judicial system in Bahrain was above reproach.  Botswana said that the statistics on the reprisals and violence against human rights defenders were not only real, but disheartening.  The report on torture had highlighted new emerging challenges, including terrorism, which called for a discussion and understanding of the meaning of torture as detailed in the Convention.
 
Kyrgyzstan stated that Kyrgyzstan had made considerable efforts with respect to the problem of torture, namely the definition of torture in the criminal law and the implementation of the Istanbul Protocol.  It agreed that illegal migrants were becoming increasingly vulnerable to human rights violations, including torture.   Estonia agreed that torture and other inhumane treatment was being increasingly used in the name of national security.  As for the defence of human rights defenders, it noted that there should be more support for them, especially in light of the digital security agenda.   Turkey said it had adopted a “zero tolerance” policy against torture.  The security measures taken following the attempted coup were made in transparency and in conformity with law and international humanitarian standards.   Armenia highlighted the important role of human rights defenders in promoting human rights, and agreed that some countries with increasingly authoritarian regimes were curbing the space for civil society. 
 
Iraq said human rights principles were a cornerstone of Iraq’s democratic system, and there were broad swathes of Iraqi citizens who had been victims of torture carried out by Da’esh, asking the Special Rapporteur what he would do to expose the crimes of torture perpetrated by terrorist groups.  Norway expressed concern about the pressure on human rights defenders around the world, and noted that Norway would present a resolution renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders.  Republic of Korea expressed concern at major challenges facing human rights defenders around the world, including the growing tension between evolving human rights and resistance by governments as evidenced by the debate on the concept of “cultural human rights defenders” at the Council’s thirty-second session.  Ireland said it was vital that the Council renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders.  The work of the Special Rapporteur on torture on non-coercive interview practices and non-refoulement was particularly welcomed.  Portugal said that the report raised the very important issue of torture by non-State actors and asked about initiatives to close the protection gap of victims in this context.  Portugal asked how the Special Rapporteur would strengthen initiatives to improve the implementation of recommendations and resolutions on the protection of human rights defenders.
 
Right of Reply
 
Israel, speaking in a right of reply, objected to the accusations by the State of Palestine and said that Israel was a party to the Convention against Torture.  Unlike the Palestinian Authority, Israel regularly participated in the review by the Committee against Torture to which Israel had presented its fifth periodic report last year.
 
Azerbaijan, speaking in a right of reply, said that 25 years ago the United Nations and the Security Council had adopted resolutions with regards to the military occupation of Azerbaijan by its neighbour Armenia, and that the official terms and names were therein contained.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record