人权理事会通过关于孕产妇死亡率、过渡时期司法和文化权利的三项案文（部分翻译）

上午

日内瓦（2016年9月30日）——人权理事会今天上午继续对案文草案采取行动，并通过关于孕产妇死亡率、过渡时期司法和文化权利的三项决议。

理事会继续在有关促进和保护所有人权、包括发展权在内的公民、政治、经济、社会及文化权利的议程项目下采取行动，通过了一项关于孕产妇死亡率的决议，决议决定在理事会第三十四届会议上召开关于可持续发展目标三和五在可预防的孕产妇死亡率和发病率以及性健康和生殖健康和权利方面的联系的小组讨论。

在一项关于人权和过渡时期司法的决议（以29票赞成、1票反对和17票弃权通过）中，理事会要求寻求真相、司法、赔偿和保证不再发生问题特别报告员和防止灭绝种族问题秘书长特别顾问准备一份关于过渡时期司法对预防严重侵犯和践踏人权和严重违反国际人道主义法所做贡献的联合研究，包括灭绝种族、战争罪、民族清洗和危害人类罪及其再度发生，这份联合研究将于第三十七届会议上向人权理事会呈交。

在一项关于文化权利和保护文化遗产的决议（未经表决通过）中，理事会要求联合国人权事务高级专员在人权事务高级专员第三十六届会议前召开为期一天的闭会期间讨论会，进而防止、限制及/或缓解破坏或毁灭文化遗产对享有人权（包括所有人享有文化权利）以及对在这方面的最佳做法造成的不利影响。

古巴、俄罗斯联邦、瑞士、塞浦路斯和墨西哥介绍了决议与修订案草案。

比利时、孟加拉国、墨西哥、俄罗斯联邦、大韩民国、摩洛哥、瑞士、联合王国以及代表欧盟的斯洛文尼亚在一般性意见中发言。

在投票前后解释投票的包括墨西哥、阿尔巴尼亚、荷兰、沙特阿拉伯、古巴、孟加拉国、俄罗斯联邦、萨尔瓦多、巴拿马、瑞士、德国、阿尔及利亚、南非、越南、联合王国、吉尔吉斯斯坦、厄瓜多尔以及中国。

理事会将于今天下午1点举行下一次会议，继续处理决议和决定，随后结束第三十三届常会。

Action on Texts under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development
 
Action on Resolution on Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights
 
In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.3/Rev.1) on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised and amended, the Council urges all States to renew their political commitment to eliminate preventable maternal mortality and morbidity at the local, national, regional and international levels; requests States and other relevant actors to give renewed emphasis to maternal mortality and morbidity initiatives in their development partnerships and cooperation arrangements; requests the High Commissioner to bring to the attention of the High-level working group on women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health the technical guidance; and decides to convene, at its thirty-fourth session, a panel discussion on the linkages between Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 5 in relation to preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and sexual and reproductive health and rights.
 
Before the resolution was adopted, the Council took action on a number of draft amendments.
 
The Council adopted draft amendment L.38 by a vote of 20 in favour, 18 against and 7 abstentions.
 
The Council adopted draft amendment L.42 by a vote of 23 in favour, 13 against and 10 abstentions.
 
The Council adopted draft amendment L.46 by a vote of 22 in favour, 17 against and 5 abstentions.
 
The Council adopted draft amendment L.49 by a vote of 22 in favour, 16 against and six abstentions.
 
The Council adopted draft amendment L.51 by a vote of 24 in favour, 15 against and 5 abstentions.
 
Colombia, introducing draft resolution L.3/Rev.1, said that the text referred to important achievements in the area of preventing maternal mortality, and highlighted the need to strengthen international cooperation and capacity building to countries on combatting preventable maternal mortality.  The draft resolution further requested the holding of a panel discussion on the progress made in countries.  Colombia introduced oral revisions to the text.
 
Russia, introducing draft written amendments L.38 to L.51, said that one of the priorities of the national health policy was preserving motherhood and childhood and during recent years, and by 2020 Russia would have fully implement the Millennium Development Goals on reducing child mortality and improving maternal health.  The issue of preventable maternal mortality should be considered in the context of health policies and systems in countries, creating necessary competence, infrastructure and technology.  It must be seen in connection with national efforts to improve the health situation.  Russia commended the main authors of the resolution for recognizing that preventing maternal mortality was a health and development and not only a human rights issue, and for reaching an agreement on the language of the main text, and that was why L.40 was withdrawn.  Russia also said that the main authors had recognized the concerns related to the introduction of special human rights indicators for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda, which would overload the international system, and that was why amendments L.44 and L.50 were withdrawn.  Main co-sponsors had taken into account the comments of Russia concerning the appropriate reflection of the International Covenants in the draft resolution, which was the subject of the amendment L.41.  The draft resolution also aimed to introduce a new category of rights – sexual rights, and this was the subject of the amendments L.42 and L.46.  Russia was prepared to withdraw amendments L.38, L.43 and L.44.
 
It was not correct to put forward technical principles of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as being the sole mechanism for States and it was counter-productive to provide technical assistance only to those countries which were combatting maternal mortality using the technical principles of the Office.  Those were issues addressed by draft amendments L.47 and L.48; however, as the co-sponsors had amended the language, those draft amendments were withdrawn.  Russia withdrew draft amendments L.39, L.40, L.41, L.43, L.44, L.45, L.47, L.48, and L.50, and requested that draft amendments L.38, L.42, L.46, L.49, and L.51 be considered separately.
 
Belgium, speaking in a general comment, said that the main sponsors and co-sponsors could not support the amendments because they took away from the scope and integrity of the text.  The aim was to focus on the references of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  It would thus request a vote on each proposed amendment.
 
Bangladesh, speaking in a general comment, said it attached high priority to the prevention of child mortality and had successfully brought down child mortality by more than 65 per cent over the past decade.  The draft resolution did not take fully into account cultural and religious diversity, or the Sustainable Development Goals.  It attempted to base future development in a selective way.  The draft resolution retained references to which Bangladesh had previously stated reservations.
 
Mexico, speaking in a general comment, urged Member States to adopt the text as submitted.  The text addressed the importance of sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls.  Furthermore, it recognized multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination that women and girls suffered in that respect.  It called for women and girls to be able to freely decide on their bodily integrity.  After a long history of struggle for the universality of human rights voting against the draft resolution would be intolerable and unacceptable.
 
Action on Amendment L.38
 
The Council adopted draft amendment L.38 by a vote of 20 in favour, 18 against and 7 abstentions.
 
Action on Amendment L.42
 
Switzerland, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft amendment L.42, rejected this amendment and would vote against it.  The concept of sexual and reproductive health and rights was being widely used by a number of international organizations and the General Assembly.  Switzerland did not believe that a reference must be made to the Beijing Platform for Action and the International Conference for Population and Development and their Review Conference every time when sexual and reproductive health was discussed.  A lot of progress had been made since: in 1994, maternal mortality had been a lot higher.  The draft resolution should respect the important advancements and the human rights dimensions of the issue.
 
Georgia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft amendment L.42, recalled the Beijing Platform for Action and the International Conference for Population and Development and their Review Conferences, saying that the concept of sexual and reproductive health and rights was being widely used and Georgia would vote against this amendment.
 
The Council adopted draft amendment L.42 by a vote of 23 in favour, 13 against and 10 abstentions.
 
Action on Amendment L.46
 
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, rejected the proposed amendment to delete the appeal to States to repeal discriminatory laws concerning sexual and reproductive rights.  The amendment would weaken the resolution and would not protect the bodily autonomy of women and girls, which went to the essence of discrimination.  Why should women have less control over their bodies than men?
 
Albania, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, noted that the principle of autonomous decision over one’s own body was crucial.  The lack of such a decision contributed to maternal mortality and morbidity and thus urged all Member States to vote against the amendment.
 
The Council then adopted amendment L.46 by a vote of 22 in favour, 17 against and five abstentions. 
 
Action on Amendment L.49
 
Netherlands, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft amendment L.49, opposed this amendment and said that the draft resolution contained important elements which must be considered in preventing maternal mortality.  The draft resolution reaffirmed the General Comment N°22 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the right to sexual and reproductive health, which had set out some actions a State could undertake in preventing maternal mortality.
 
The Council adopted draft amendment L.49 by a vote of 22 in favour, 16 against and six abstentions.
 
Action on Amendment L.51
 
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, rejected the proposed amendment on linkages with the Sustainable Development Goals.  The panel on maternal mortality and morbidity was too broad and required a framing that explained the root causes of the issue.  It was important to explain the interconnection between the right to sexual and reproductive health and the Sustainable Development Goals.  Mexico called on Member States to vote against the proposed amendment.
 
Netherlands, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Netherlands opposed the amendment because it went against the panel discussion.  Maternal mortality and morbidity was a grave issue worldwide.  It was important not to limit the panel discussion only to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, but to add a human rights perspective to the discussion.  The panel was not trying to establish new rights nor direct States in any policy direction, and the Netherlands thus called on Member States to vote against the amendment.
 
The Council then adopted amendment L.51 by a vote of 24 in favour, 15 against and five abstentions.      
 
Action on L.3/Rev.1
 
Saudi Arabia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of a group of countries on L.3/Rev.1 as orally revised and as amended, thanked the core group on presenting this important resolution on preventable maternal mortality and human rights and said that a core priority of the group of countries was to provide health care and easy access to health care to everyone without any discrimination.  Particular attention was given to maternal health, including by renewing the commitment to improving maternal mortality.  The draft resolution presented seemed to look at the issue of maternal mortality and morbidity from one perspective and one angle – it referred to sexual and reproductive health as a right, with a binding nature; this was not an agreed upon notion as the right to sexual and reproductive health had not been included in any core human rights instruments.  There were so many aspects that could have a major impact on maternal mortality and morbidity that the draft resolution had not adequately addressed, such as poverty, education, easy and affordable access to health services, or access to pre and post-natal services and safe delivery.  The draft resolution was based on General Comment N°22 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was highly controversial and had not been agreed on by States.  Saudi Arabia and other countries in the group stressed that technical guidance by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be used by States as appropriate, in accordance with their specificities.  The group disassociated itself from several paragraphs of the draft resolution and requested that this position be reflected in the Human Rights Council records.
 
Cuba, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, explained that it had ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, as well as the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action.  It defended the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 5, which was linked to the empowerment of women and girls, and it had taken an active part in the establishment of UN Women.  Women played a great role in Cuba’s society.  There was universal access to health services for women and girls, and they had full control over their bodily autonomy.  Several national programmes had been adopted related to the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, among others.  There should be a holistic approach to the health rights of women and girls in order to prevent child and maternal mortality, and link it with the right to the highest attainable standard of health.  Technology and necessary knowledge had to be transferred to the countries of the south in order to achieve those goals.
 
Bangladesh, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it would disassociate itself from the preamble paragraph 3 and the operative paragraph 1 because it had previously stated reservations. 
 
Russian Federation, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said there was a constant trend towards the reduction of early mortality and life expectancy for women and men as a result of the measures adopted at the State level, and modernization of healthcare.  One of the priorities was preserving motherhood.  The work was guided by relevant recommendations of the World Health Organization.  The Russian Federation was satisfied to see that the proposed amendments had been approved by Member States, and would join consensus on draft resolution L.3/Rev.1.
 
El Salvador, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.3/Rev.1 as orally revised and amended, said that the prevention of maternal mortality and morbidity was of particular importance.  This issue should enjoy the support of all Member States of the Council.  The draft resolution went beyond the subject of prevention, and aimed to provide care as well.  El Salvador disassociated itself from the consensus.
 
Panama, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.3/Rev.1 as orally revised and amended, said Panama was in favour of the Council protecting the human rights of all people, and eradicating maternal mortality and morbidity had special significance in its national programmes.  This was the spirit that had inspired Panama to join the co-sponsors but now it could not support the text as it was against its national laws and regulations, nor had it used the internationally agreed language.  Panama supported the amendments made by Russia which brought greater balance to the text and disassociated itself from the consensus.
 
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Transitional Justice
 
In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.10) on human rights and transitional justice, as orally revised, adopted with a vote of 29 in favour, 1 against and 17 abstentions, the Council reiterates the responsibility of each individual State to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity; calls upon States, where relevant, to develop comprehensive transitional justice strategies and to establish judicial and non-judicial mechanisms in order to address past atrocities, the needs of victims and their right to an effective remedy, and to prevent their recurrence; and requests the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide to prepare a joint study on the contribution of transitional justice to the prevention of gross violations and abuses of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, including genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and their recurrence, to be presented to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-seventh session.
 

 

The result of the vote was as follows:
 
In favour (29): Albania, Belgium, Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Latvia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, and United Kingdom.
 
Against (1): Congo.
 
Abstentions (17): Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.
 
 
Before the Council voted on the resolution, it took action on a number of amendments.

The Council rejected draft amendment L.36 by a vote of 18 in favour, 24 against and 5 abstentions.
 
The Council rejected draft amendment L.37 by a vote of 19 in favour, 24 against and 4 abstentions.
 
The Council retained Preambular Paragraph 19 of resolution L.10 by a vote of 26 in favour, 16 against and 5 abstentions.
 
Switzerland, introducing draft resolution L.10, reminded that in 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2012, Switzerland had presented four resolutions on transitional justice and human rights, as well as one in 2011 that had created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparation and non-repetition, and another in 2014 that had extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.  It was necessary to assist States that had experienced serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in order to prevent experiencing such violations again and to consolidate peace and security.  The draft resolution called on the Special Rapporteur and on the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide to draw up a joint study on the links between transitional justice and the prevention of human rights violations and abuses, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.  That study would be presented to the Council in March 2018.  Switzerland regretted that some delegations had requested a vote on operative paragraph 19, which recognized the role of the International Criminal Court in the fight against impunity. 
 
Cuba, introducing draft amendments L.36 and L.37, said that those reflected disagreements with the functions of the Special Adviser in connection with the Responsibility to Protect, for which his Office did not have a mandate.  The Member States of the United Nations had not mutually agreed on the definition and scope of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect, and the Human Rights Council was not the right forum for those issues to be discussed.  Cuba was seriously concerned about the paragraphs that should be amended about the attempts to put into practice the presumed concept on Responsibility to Protect without the agreement of States.  The framework proposed could justify military interventions in countries.  Should the amendments be rejected, Cuba called for a vote on the resolution as a whole.  Cuba was concerned that the so-called Responsibility to Protect could be used by covert interventionists, as it had been done before.
 
Morocco, speaking on behalf of co-sponsors, rejected amendment L.36 and called for a vote on it, and called for Member States to vote against it.
 
Russia, speaking in a general comment, said that it attached prime importance to ensuring the rule of law and justice, which were particularly vital for States in transitional period.  That was why the draft resolution was very important.  Unfortunately, the co-sponsors had chosen a controversial approach and used concepts which were unacceptable to many delegations such as the Responsibility to Protect and atrocity crimes.  Another problematic fact was that the International Criminal Court had been presented in the draft as a tool for strengthening human rights and Russia was against free interpretation of the Court’s function and jurisdiction which was clearly defined by the Rome Statute and did not include international human rights norms.  Russia could also not agree with assigning prime responsibility to civil society in connection to human rights, reminding that the prime responsibility for ensuring human rights was with States.  
 
Republic of Korea, speaking in a general comment, noted that transitional justice was one of the most urgent issues that required the special attention of the Council.  The text of the draft resolution reiterated the centrality of comprehensive transitional justice strategies to deal with past crimes.  It could help conflict-affected societies avoid relapsing into conflict.  The Republic of Korea would therefore support the draft resolution as orally revised and expressed hope that it would be adopted by consensus.
 
Belgium, speaking in a general comment, said that the topic was a priority for Belgium.  The draft resolution underscored the importance of adopting global strategies on transitional justice.  Transitional justice was a key tool to combat impunity.  It was vital to create sustainable conditions and prevent violence from taking place in the future.  Belgium appreciated the way in which the co-sponsors had taken in comments and concerns of various delegations during the negotiation process without losing the key objective of the resolution.  Belgium provided full support to the draft resolution as orally revised.
 
Morocco, speaking in a general comment, clarified that the core-group countries sought a vote on amendments L.36 and L.37, and asked Member States to vote against them.
 
Action on Amendment L.36
 
Netherlands, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft amendment L.36, opposed this amendment and said that prevention did not work in a vacuum.  The role of the Offices of the Special Advisers to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect was crucial for this work.  Transitional justice processes aimed to address the past and to pave the way for a sustainable and peaceful future.  The framework of analysis of atrocity crimes prepared by the Special Advisor served States in their work to prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and crimes of genocide and was a public document.  The Netherlands rejected this draft amendment which sought to distort and dilute the framework and called upon all Member States to vote against it.    
 
Panama, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft amendment L.36, rejected this amendment and said that the draft resolution recognized the mandate of the Offices of the Special Advisers to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect, particularly in the prevention of the most serious crimes.  The framework for the analyses of atrocity crimes was very relevant and Panama called on all Member States to reject the draft amendment.
 
The Council rejected draft amendment L.36 by a vote of 18 in favour, 24 against and 5 abstentions.
 
Action on Amendment L.37
 
Albania, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, rejected amendment L.37, noting that cooperation was necessary for States to ensure non-recurrence.  It called for a vote on the amendment and asked all States to vote against the proposed amendment.
 
Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, noted that operative paragraph 7 was one of main operative paragraphs of the draft resolution as that appeal was addressed to all States and was essential to prevent potential present situations or the recurrence of past situations leading to serious violations of human rights.  The mere mention of the full title of the Office of the Special Advisers was the only feasible way to address that important issue.  The Offices of the Special Advisers to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect constituted a single entity and could not be split into two. 
 
The Council then rejected amendment L.37 by a vote of 19 in favour, 24 against and four abstentions.
 
Action on Preambular Paragraph 19 of Resolution on Human Rights and Transitional Justice
 
Switzerland, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on preambular paragraph 19, said that it did not support the deletion of this paragraph.  There had been no objections during the whole negotiation process on this paragraph; the attack on this paragraph came as a complete surprise to the co-sponsors of the draft resolution.  Switzerland would vote in favour of the retention of this paragraph and called upon all other Member States to do the same.
 
Germany, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on preambular paragraph 19, said that this paragraph recognized the role of the International Criminal Court which sought to promote human rights and achieve peace in accordance with the United Nations Charter and international law.  This had been an agreed language since 2005 when the concept of transitional justice had been adopted.  Germany called on all to vote for the retention of the paragraph.
 
Russia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on preambular paragraph 19, pointed out that the new draft contained significant changes in ideas and balance and did not consider that the agreement that Russia had given earlier meant an obligation of Russia to support the draft resolution.  Russia had never considered the International Criminal Court as being an instrument for the promotion and protection of human rights.  Russia would vote against and called upon all States to follow its example.
 
The Council retained Preambular Paragraph 19 of resolution L.10 by a vote of 26 in favour, 16 against and 5 abstained.
 
Action on Resolution L.10
 
Algeria, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it attached great importance to the principles of the rule of law and the fight against impunity.  The draft resolution went above and beyond the commitments to which it had already committed through the ratification of international conventions.  It would therefore vote against the draft resolution.
 
South Africa, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, recognized the importance of transitional justice in the promotion of human rights.  South Africa continually expressed readiness to share lessons learned from its own experience with transitional justice.  The proposed draft resolution tilted away from the core focus and in order to be properly implemented there should be clear criteria.  The envisaged study would have made a more valuable contribution if it were focused on the expertise of mandate holders.  There should be more emphasis on guarantees for non-recurrence in future resolutions.  Nevertheless, South Africa would support the draft resolution. 
 
Viet Nam, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.10, stressed the primary responsibility of States to protect their populations from war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide as agreed in the Outcome of the World Summit in 2005.  The implementation of this responsibility must not be politicized or imposed from outside without the consensus of the concerned State.  Viet Nam would therefore abstain.
 
United Kingdom, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.10, recognized the importance of truth and reconciliation mechanisms which exposed past facts in order to help societies move on from gross human rights violations.  The draft resolution requested a special study by the Special Rapporteur on truth, justice and no recurrence which would be a useful contribution to the activities to prevent recurrence.  The right to truth was not clearly set out in international law – the right to truth could be characterised differently in different legal systems.  Nevertheless, the United Kingdom would support this resolution.
 
Kyrgyzstan, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.10, said that one of the areas of competence of the Special Advisor was the promotion of the principle of the Responsibility to Protect, which Kyrgyzstan did not recognize.  It was a principle rather than a norm of international law.  It violated State sovereignty and Kyrgyzstan could not support the involvement of the Special Advisor in the implementation of this draft resolution if the study would contribute to the implementation of the principle of the Responsibility to Protect.
 
Russian Federation, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed serious concern over the fact that the main sponsors had displayed a confrontational approach which had led to breaking of the previous consensus on the draft resolution.  Activities of the international community with respect to transitional justice should be carried out in a non-politicized manner.  In the resolution some rather hazy concepts had arisen from a legal point view and those were confrontational from a political point of view.  The Russian Federation could not support a resolution which was an attempt to impose on the international community intolerable linkage between transitional justice and the Responsibility to Protect.  The Russian Federation would thus abstain from the vote.
 
Ecuador, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, believed that the implementation of the responsibility to protect was still under analysis and discussion by Member States.  Interpretation given by some States should not be imposed on others.  It would nevertheless vote in favour of the draft resolution.
 
Action on Resolution on Cultural Rights and the Protection of Cultural Heritage
 
In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.21) on cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon all States to respect, promote and protect the right of everyone to take part in cultural life, including the ability to access and enjoy cultural heritage; urges all parties to armed conflicts to refrain from any unlawful military use or targeting of cultural property, in full conformity with their obligations under international humanitarian law; and calls for the safety and security of cultural rights defenders involved in the protection of cultural heritage to be protected.  Furthermore, the Council invites States to adopt effective strategies to prevent the destruction of cultural heritage; and requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene, before the thirty-sixth session of the Human Rights Council, a one-day intersessional seminar on ways to prevent, contain and/or mitigate the detrimental impact of the damage to or destruction of cultural heritage on the enjoyment of human rights, including cultural rights by all, and on best practices in this regard.
 
Before the Council adopted the resolution, it rejected draft amendment L.35 by a vote of 14 in favour, 22 against and 10 abstentions.
 
Cyprus, introducing draft resolution L.21, said that open, inclusive and fully transparent deliberations and consultations had been held on the draft text put before the Council.  The draft resolution highlighted the detrimental impact on cultural rights of the destruction or damage of cultural heritage, including smuggling and looting of cultural objects and artefacts, which could sometimes even be used to finance terrorism.  The draft resolution recognized the role of the Human Rights Council in promoting cultural rights and the role of United Nations peacekeepers and human rights defenders in protecting cultural heritage.  The resolution called for a panel discussion on best practice in addressing damage or destruction of cultural heritage and its impact on the right of everyone to fully participate in cultural life.
 
Action on Amendment L.35
 
Russia, introducing draft amendment L.35, said that it had taken a favourable view on the draft resolution L.21 and shared and supported many of its parts, including the need to protect cultural heritage threatened by destruction.  It was alarming that artefacts plundered by terrorists in Syria and Iraq had ended up in black markets, also outside of those countries, and Russia supported the call to put an end to illegal trade in cultural artefacts.  The draft resolution however had some flaws, including the call on United Nations peacekeepers to protect cultural heritage; such a call was outside of the competence of the Human Rights Council.  Russia had proposed an alternative version of the language of the draft resolution, which would see a change in language from “protectors of cultural rights” to “people involved in the protection of cultural heritage”.
 
Switzerland, called for a vote on amendment L.35.  The carefully crafted language in the draft resolution was the result of hours of consultations and it was a compromise of different positions.  Regrettably, recent history had reminded all of the grave risks faced by cultural rights defenders, such as those defending the ancient site of Palmyra.  The issue of the protection of cultural rights defenders did not receive sufficient attention globally; their safety and security was referred to in several paragraphs in the draft resolution.
 
United Kingdom, speaking in a general comment, remained concerned about the destruction of cultural heritage.  The spirit of cooperation in drafting the current resolution was appreciated, but the United Kingdom was not convinced that the Human Rights Council was the best place to discuss cultural heritage, or that peacekeeping missions had a role to play in protecting cultural heritage.  The text strayed into international humanitarian law.  The United Kingdom would nonetheless join the consensus.
 
The Council rejected draft amendment L.35 by a vote of 14 in favour, 22 against and 10 abstentions.
 
Action on L.21
 
Russia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.21, expressed regret that the amendment deleting from the draft resolution the language that had not been agreed upon had been rejected, which pushed the text into the area of legal haziness.  Russia would not break consensus on this text but it underscored that within its work in the Council, Russia operated within the right of everyone to fully participate in cultural life, as defined by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and its national laws.  Within the United Nations, the principal agency responsible for the protection of culture and cultural heritage was the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Russia hoped to see more cooperation with it in the future. 
 
China, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.21, said that it supported the efforts of the international community to protect cultural rights and cultural heritage.  China thanked the co-sponsors on their efforts to consult with everyone and said that the draft resolution still contained wording that China could not agree with, such as the use of term “human rights defenders” – this was an ambiguous concept which could be misused and China would disassociate itself from paragraphs mentioning “cultural rights defenders”.

__________________

For use of the information media; not an official record