人权理事会通过六项决议，任命多名特别程序任务负责人，结束第三十三届常会（部分翻译）

人权理事会
下午

2016年9月30日

延长任意拘留、苏丹和中非共和国问题任务授权，修订土著人民问题任务授权

人权理事会今天下午通过了六项决议，任命了五名特别程序任务负责人和七名咨询委员会成员，随后结束第三十三届会议。

理事会通过了关于以下任务授权的案文：土著人民权利专家机制；任意拘留问题工作组；苏丹问题独立专家、中非共和国问题独立专家；刚果民主共和国人权状况；加强人权领域技术合作。

根据通过的案文，理事会决定修订土著人民权利专家机制任务授权，根据《联合国土著人民权利宣言》为理事会提供关于土著人民权利的专业技能和建议，并要求专家机制准备一份关于全世界土著人民在实现《宣言》目标方面的权利状况的年度研究。

理事会将任意拘留问题工作组的任务授权又延长了三年。

理事会对人权领域技术援助和能力建设议程项目下的案文采取行动，将苏丹人权状况独立专家的任务授权延长一年，并请他呈报一份关于任务执行的报告，包括关于技术援助和能力建设的建议，供理事会在第三十六届会议上审议。它还将中非共和国人权状况独立专家的任务授权延长一年。它请人权事务高级专员办事处准备一份关于选举背景下刚果民主共和国人权状况的报告，并在人权理事会第三十六届会议的强化互动对话期间呈报。

理事会还决定，关于人权领域技术援助和能力建设的年度专题小组讨论将在第三十五届会议期间举行，其主题是“人权理事会技术合作和能力建设十年历程：挑战和前方道路”，理事会还请人权高专办准备一份报告，关注人权理事会成立以来开展的增进技术合作与能力建设方面主要活动的进展和挑战。

在第三十三届常会的最后一次会议上，理事会决定任命其咨询委员会的成员：拉兹哈里·布齐德（Lazhari Bouzid，阿尔及利亚）和莫纳·奥马尔（Mona Omar，埃及）填补非洲国家成员的空缺；刘昕生（中国）和小畑郁（Kaoru Obata，日本）填补亚太国家成员空缺； 米哈伊尔·亚历山德罗维奇·列别捷夫（Mikhail Aleksandrovich Lebedev，俄罗斯）填补东欧国家成员空缺；卡拉·哈纳尼亚·德巴雷拉（Carla Hananía De Varela，萨尔瓦多）填补拉丁美洲和加勒比地区国家成员空缺；让·齐格勒（Jean Ziegler，瑞士）填补西欧和其他国家成员空缺。

理事会还决定任命菲律宾的塞西莉亚·吉梅内斯-达马里女士（Cecilia Jimenez-Damary）担任境内流离失所者人权问题特别报告员；瑞士的尼尔斯·梅尔策先生（Nils Melzer）担任酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚问题特别报告员；巴基斯坦的阿斯玛·贾汉吉尔女士（Asma Jahangir）担任伊朗伊斯兰共和国人权状况特别报告员；拉脱维亚的艾莉娜·斯坦内特女士（Elina Steinerte）担任任意拘留问题工作组东欧国家成员；泰国的威迪·蒙丹蓬先生（Vitit Muntarbhorn）担任防止基于性取向和性别认同暴力问题的独立专家。

理事会随后通过了（但尚待核准）由人权理事会副主席吉尔特·穆伊勒（Geert Muylle）呈报的第三十三届会议报告。

人权理事会主席崔庆林（Choi Kyong-Lim）在闭幕致辞中对民间社会代表受到恐吓与报复行为的指控表示关切，包括由本理事会的成员国所为，他还呼吁各国采取一切必要措施，防止并确保针对这类行为提供充分保护。

发言介绍了案文草案的有危地马拉、印度尼西亚、代表非洲集团的南非、泰国、法国和吉尔吉斯斯坦。

苏丹和刚果民主共和国作为当事国发言。

代表欧盟的斯洛文尼亚、代表阿拉伯集团的卡塔尔、中国、俄罗斯、比利时、墨西哥、大韩民国、瑞士和吉尔吉斯斯坦在一般性意见中发言。

在投票前后发言解释选票的有墨西哥、俄罗斯、卡塔尔、刚果共和国、斯洛文尼亚、瑞士、蒙古、玻利维亚和英国。

以下观察国就通过的决议发言：阿根廷、伊朗、伊拉克、澳大利亚、巴基斯坦、埃及、美国、代表一组国家的加拿大、新西兰、西班牙和马里。

英国、欧盟、俄罗斯和前南斯拉夫马其顿共和国在一般结论性意见中发言。

国际人权服务社（International Service for Human Rights，联合声明）和阿拉伯人权委员会也在一般结论性意见中发言。

代表伊斯兰合作组织（除阿尔巴尼亚）的沙特阿拉伯、俄罗斯、英国、肯尼亚就特别程序任务负责人的任命发言。

人权理事会第三十四届常会将在2017年2月27日至3月24日举行。

Action on Resolution under the Agenda Item on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms
 
Action on Resolution on the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.25) on the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to amend the mandate of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which shall provide the Human Rights Council with expertise and advice on the rights of indigenous peoples as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and assist Member States, upon request, to achieve the ends of the Declaration; decides that the Expert Mechanism shall prepare an annual study on the status of the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide in the achievement of the ends of the Declaration, and to identify, disseminate and promote good practices and lessons learned regarding the efforts to achieve the ends of the Declaration, including through reports to the Human Rights Council on this matter.  The Council also decides that the Expert Mechanism shall report at least once a year to the Human Rights Council on its work; and further decides that the Expert Mechanism shall consist of seven independent experts, one from each of the seven indigenous sociocultural regions; and decides to introduce staggered terms for the membership of the Expert Mechanism, considering the need to secure continuity in its functioning.

Guatemala, introducing the draft resolution, said that the view was toward modifying and reviewing the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ mandate to more effectively respect the rights of indigenous people.  Members of the Mechanism could ascertain themes for study.  The Mechanism was also granted the power to develop assistance related to the rights of indigenous people when required.  Various functions were institutionalised with a view to complying with its functions.  The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should coordinate its work with the Permanent Forum of Indigenous Issues, among other relevant bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations.  The adoption of the draft resolution would help the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples promote its work. 

Indonesia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Indonesia had an unwavering commitment to the protection of all human rights as enumerated in Indonesia’s Constitution.  The Core Group’s efforts to accommodate some of Indonesia’s input were appreciated.  National legislation provided sufficient processes.  While supporting consensus, Indonesia dissociated itself from Operative Paragraph 2c. 

Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building in the Field of Human Rights

Action on Resolution on Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building to Improve Human Rights in the Sudan

In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.4) on technical assistance and capacity-building to improve human rights in the Sudan, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council decides to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert for a period of one year and requests the Independent Expert to present a report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of his mandate, including recommendations on technical assistance and capacity building, for its consideration at its thirty-sixth session; calls upon the Government of the Sudan to continue its full cooperation with the Independent Expert and to continue to permit effective access to visit all areas of the country, and to meet with all relevant actors; requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all necessary financial and human resources support to the Independent Expert for the implementation of his mandate; and calls upon the Government of the Sudan to continue to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of the present resolution.

South Africa, introducing the draft resolution on behalf of the African Group, said that the draft resolution welcomed positive developments in Sudan and encouraged the Government of Sudan to continue improving human rights, in particular through holding a national dialogue and ensuring a peace settlement.  The mandate of the Independent Expert would be extended by one year.  The African Group appreciated the constructive engagement by all countries, and hoped the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.

Slovenia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, was gravely concerned about the human rights situation in Sudan.  The European Union had called for a resolution reflecting the human rights situation on the ground.  The reference to the recommendations made by the Independent Expert was welcomed, while the mention of the need to allow unhindered access to the populations in need was also appreciated.  The European Union welcomed the commitment of the Government of Sudan to cooperate with the Independent Expert. 

Qatar, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Arab Group, said efforts of the Government of Sudan were supported.  There was a need to consolidate Sudan’s human rights capacities since the country required support in dealing with the rebels.  There were adverse effects of unilateral coercive measures.  The resolution did not meet all the Arab Group’s expectations but it was vital to support it.  It was hoped that the resolution could be adopted by consensus.

China, speaking in a general comment, welcomed the resolution.  Dialogue was the only way to handle human rights situations.  China commended achievements by the Government of Sudan and expressed understanding for Sudan’s situation as a developing country.  The Human Rights Council should respect Sudan’s sovereignty. 

Russian Federation, speaking in a general comment, believed that the wording in the draft resolution would not contribute to the work of the Independent Expert. 

Sudan, speaking as the concerned country, thanked all partners for their cooperation on promoting human rights in Sudan.  Sudan would continue to cooperate with all human rights mechanisms, including the Independent Expert.  Sudan was facing a very difficult situation, but would continue its commitment with all civil society organizations and other stakeholders with the view of promoting human rights.  Sudan called on the international community to provide it with the resources it needed and to support the peace process. 

Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed concern at the human rights situation in Sudan, and welcomed that a solution had been achieved that united the Human Rights Council.  But the submission of parallel resolutions on the same situation did not give credibility to all delegations and represented an obstacle.  The sponsors of the resolution were urged to keep working with members of the Council.

Action on Resolution on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building in the Field of Human Rights in the Central African Republic

In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.16) on technical assistance and capacity building in the field of human rights in the Central African Republic, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to renew, for one year, the mandate of the Independent Expert to assess, monitor and report on the situation of human rights in the Central African Republic with a view to making recommendations related to technical assistance and capacity-building in the field of human rights.  The Council also reiterates its call for an immediate end to all abuses and violations of human rights and illegal acts of violence committed by all parties; urges the Central African authorities, with the support of the MINUSCA and the European EUTM RCA operation, to adopt and implement a national security policy and a comprehensive strategy for the reform of the security sector; requests the authorities of the Central African Republic to take immediate and concrete priority measures to strengthen the judiciary and fight against impunity; and requests Member States and international and regional organizations to provide urgent support to the Central African authorities for the conduct of these reforms and the restoration of State authority throughout the territory.

South Africa, introducing the draft resolution L.16 on behalf of the African Group, explained that the draft resolution was a product of wide consultations undertaken to ensure a consensus resolution.  It called on the authorities of the Central African Republic to ensure respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the entire population, and to take all the necessary measures to end the impunity of perpetrators of acts of violence.  It renewed for one year the mandate of the Independent Expert to assess, monitor and report on the situation of human rights in the Central African Republic  with a view to making recommendations related to technical assistance and capacity-building in the field of human rights.  It called on all parties to fully cooperate with the Independent Expert in carrying out her mandate, and it requested her to work closely with all United Nations bodies, the African Union, the Economic Community of Central African States, as well as with other relevant international organizations, civil society and relevant human rights mechanisms.  The draft resolution also requested the Independent Expert to provide an oral update on her report to the Council at its thirty-fourth session, and to submit a written report to the Council at its thirty-sixth session.

Slovenia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said that the draft resolution allowed the Council to continue to assess the situation of human rights in the Central African Republic, where there were many security challenges.  The elected authorities had to combat impunity and re-establish the authority of the State throughout the country.  The European Union applauded the extension of the mandate of the Independent Expert which would allow for the monitoring of the human rights situation and making specific recommendations to the Central African Republic authorities.  The European Union assured the Central African Republic of its full support of its efforts to find a way out the crisis.

Russian Federation, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the reference to the code of behaviour of Special Procedures mandate holders was “in full”.  Reference was also made to wording surrounding the Independent Expert’s work.

Action on Resolution on the Enhancement on Technical Cooperation and Capacity-building in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.18) on the enhancement of technical cooperation and capacity-building in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote,  the Council encourages States, relevant international organizations, intergovernmental bodies and civil society, including non-governmental organizations, to reflect on the achievements made and obstacles faced in their past efforts pertaining to technical cooperation and capacity-building in the field of human rights;  decides that the theme for the annual thematic panel discussion under agenda item 10 to be held during its thirty-fifth session will be “A decade of technical cooperation and capacity-building in the Human Rights Council: challenges and the way forward”; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a report on the progress and challenges in the main activities to enhance technical cooperation and capacity-building undertaken since the establishment of the Human Rights Council.

Thailand, introducing the draft resolution on enhancement of technical cooperation and capacity-building in the field of human rights, said that the draft resolution this year proposed the theme of “ A decade of technical cooperation and capacity-building in the Human Rights Council: challenges and the way forward” for the annual panel discussion.  The draft enjoyed the co-sponsorship of 119 States.  It was hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted by the Council by consensus, as in past years.

Action on Resolution on Technical Assistance and Capacity-building for Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.26) on technical assistance and capacity-building for human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, adopted without a vote, the Council strongly condemns the recent deadly clashes in Kinshasa and elsewhere in the country and strongly urges the Government to intensify its efforts and take immediate steps to peacefully resolve the political issues that led to recent violence throughout the country, particularly in Kinshasa, and avoid additional confrontations; and  calls on the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to ensure an equitable political participation for all and create without delay the necessary conditions for holding free, transparent, inclusive and peaceful elections.  The Council  reiterates its request to the international community, under the ownership of the Congolese Government, to improve the involvement of national authorities and beneficiaries in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects for the promotion and protection of human rights; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report on the situation of Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo during the electoral context, and present it during an enhanced interactive dialogue during the Human Rights Council’s thirty-sixth session.

South Africa, introducing draft resolution L.26 on behalf of the African Group, said that the draft resolution welcomed the significant progress made by the Democratic Republic of the Congo with regard to institutional and legislative developments relating to human rights, including the adoption in 2013 of an institutional act giving courts of appeal jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity.  As for the ongoing electoral process, the draft noted with appreciation the launching on 31 July 2016 by the independent national electoral commission of the process of revision of the electoral roll in the province of Nord Ubangi, and of the organization of the national political dialogue under the auspices of the African Union and the international community with a view to finding consensual solutions for the holding of peaceful, transparent and credible elections.  The draft condemned the clashes in Kinshasa and encouraged the Government to intensify its efforts to resolve peacefully the political issues that had led to that violence and to avoid further confrontation.  For the first time, operative paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 recognized that the situation in the country would be monitored by the Council during its session in March, June and September 2017.

Slovenia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said that serious human rights violations in Kinshasa and in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo meant that there were enormous obstacles.  Justice had been instrumentalized and there were politically motivated restrictions on peaceful assembly and arbitrary arrests and detention.  The European Union called on the Special Procedures mandate holders to pay special attention to the country.  The Government needed to allow full access to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  The European Union welcomed the submission of the draft and the resolution foresaw an interactive dialogue which would allow the monitoring of the situation throughout the coming year.  The European Union joined the consensus on the draft resolution.

Belgium, speaking in a general comment, expressed appreciation for the frank and open consultations.  The coming year would be crucial for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the whole region.  Uncertainty about when elections would be held entailed a lot of danger.  Organising elections was ever more necessary.  Unrest in Kinshasa meant the international community had to remain attentive.  Belgium called for an independent inquiry to determine responsibility for recent events.  Human rights needed to be respected at all times.  The Human Rights Council and other international human rights mechanisms needed to play a preventive role and react to any violent event.  The draft resolution should be part of those efforts.  Belgium expressed its support for L.26 and joined the consensus.

Democratic Republic of Congo, speaking as the concerned country, stated that the draft resolution L.26 was initially designed to evaluate technical assistance for strengthening of human rights in the country, and to reflect the Government’s efforts in that respect.  Further progress had been made due to the launching of dialogue and de-escalation of political tensions, including the release of political prisoners and prisoners of consciousness.  The delegation of the Democratic Republic of Congo did not appreciate certain reactions to the events in Kinshasa and how they had been reflected in debates.  It reassured that the Government would strive to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.  Arrests had already been made in Kinshasa and several people had been convicted of pillage and construction.  The events in Kinshasa should not be turned into something more excessive and the Democratic Republic of Congo reminded Member States that it continued to be a fragile country coming out of conflict.  It called on Member States to improve human rights throughout the world, rather than exacerbate crises.  Inflammatory speech should be avoided in order to avoid destabilizing the country.  The Democratic Republic of the Congo was steadfastly committed to the protection and promotion of human rights, and to authentic dialogue with the Council.   It called on Member States to adopt the draft resolution by consensus. 

General Comments at the End of the Consideration of Resolutions under Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building

Russian Federation, speaking in a general comment, regretted the refusal to recognize provisions to the effect that Special Procedures should abide by the Code of Conduct.  Russia would like to appeal to the co-sponsors of all drafts that provided for Special Procedures mandates to include a reference to resolution 5/2.

Qatar, speaking in a general comment, said that in reference to the resolution on Yemen, the head of the Arab Group wanted to point out that Iraq had not co-sponsored the resolution.

Action on Resolutions 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 Arbitrary Detention

In a resolution (A/HRC/33/L.22) on arbitrary detention, adopted by a vote of 46 in favour, none against and one abstention, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for a further period of three years; requests the States concerned to take account of the views of the Working Group, and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken; encourages all States to respect and promote the right of anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, and to be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released; and also encourages all States to cooperate with the Working Group and to give serious consideration to responding favourably to its requests for visits so that it may carry out its mandate even more effectively.
 
The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (46): Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (0):

Abstentions (1): Kyrgyzstan.


Before the Council adopted the resolution, it rejected an oral amendment by a vote of four in favour, 32 against and 11 abstained.

France, introducing draft resolution L.22, said that the proposal sought to extend the mandate of the Working Group on arbitrary detention for a period of three years.  The mandate of the Working Group was essential for combatting arbitrary detention which was contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to Articles 9 and 11 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Thanks to the resolution the Working Group would be able to continue investigating allegations of arbitrary detention, based on the information provided by interested parties.  It would be able to continue to transmit urgent appeals, conduct visits and adopt general deliberations in line with its mandate.  Those would permit the Working Group to prevent the risk of arbitrary detention in cooperation and dialogue with States. 

Action on Oral Amendment

Kyrgyzstan, introducing an oral amendment, said that paragraph 3 should read “invites the States concerned to consider the views of the Working Group and, where necessary, to consider taking appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, and to consider informing the Working Group of the steps they have taken”.

France, speaking in a general comment, regretted that the oral amendment had been submitted at the last moment.  France could not accept the oral amendment which strove to change OP3 of the resolution which called on States to take the Working Group into consideration.  The paragraph in its original form had accepted language from the previous resolution and so France called for a vote on the oral amendment, calling on all members to vote against it.

Mexico, speaking in a general comment, said that it could not accept the presented amendment.  The text was the result of a broad and transparent consultation in which all States could participate.  The process had yielded a balanced text.  It regretted that oral amendments had been added at a later stage.  The presentation of last-minute amendments did not allow for proper discussion, analysis and negotiation among States.  Such amendments undermined the work of the Council and Mexico thus urged all Member States to vote against the proposed amendment.

Republic of Korea, in a general comment, acknowledged that the Working Group on arbitrary detention had made every effort to listen to the voices of victims, and it thus supported the extension of the Group’s mandate for another three years.  The Republic of Korea noted that all adequate resources should be provided to the Working Group.  It was confident that the Group would be able to fulfil its mandate with the support of the Secretary-General and Member States.

Switzerland, speaking in a general comment, said that the Working Group on arbitrary detention had done outstanding work since its inception in 1991 and its work was indispensable in shedding light on these human rights violations.  Its mandate allowed for the consideration of individual cases and was the only mechanism of such nature which was not based on a treaty.  Switzerland welcomed the renewal of the mandate and expressed its genuine support for its work.  Switzerland would vote against the proposed amendment.

Belgium, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Belgium opposed the oral amendment proposed by Kyrgyzstan since the original version of the resolution had been based on the resolution adopted  three years ago.  Oral amendments should not be submitted at the last minute, said Belgium, adding that it would vote against it.

The Council rejected oral amendment by a vote of four in favour, 32 against and 11 abstained.

Kyrgyzstan , speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, expressed appreciation for the countries which had supported its oral amendment, and requested a vote on draft resolution L.22 as a whole.

Explanations of the Vote after the Vote on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All  Human Rights

Republic of Congo, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, voiced support for the draft resolution on human rights and transitional justice.  Whatever reservations it had held about the concept, it had always been favourable of transitional justice.  The Republic of Congo corrected its negative vote and said that its vote was in favour.

Slovenia, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, expressed thanks for the transparent negotiations on the resolution on the rights of older persons.  The Independent Expert should continue to work closely with States in order to implement relevant measures.  Slovenia commended the work done thus far and various ways to strengthen the rights of older persons, including elaboration of an international instrument in that respect.  Slovenia reminded that the Council bore the responsibility.  Slovenia could not support the resolution L.3 as it considered that future progress should be built through constructive dialogue.

Switzerland, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, thanked Mexico for having led negotiations on the draft resolution on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism.  It regretted that it was impossible to reach an agreement that measures should not hinder humanitarian efforts.

Mongolia, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that with respect to the draft resolution on human rights and transitional justice, it supported the retention of operational paragraph PP19.  It wanted to vote in favour of that paragraph.

Bolivia, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that on the resolution on the human right to water, that was a fundamental right, which was why the resolution last year had been supported.  The idea of water and sanitation and equality was vital, as was finding a structural solution.  Private companies had limited that right and there was no operative paragraph on that.  Bolivia would continue promoting the human right to water as a fundamental human right.  Also, with respect to the resolutions on indigenous people, defending their rights was inherent to Bolivia from the President down.  The strengthening of the three mechanisms related to that was therefore supported.  It was vital to bolster the commitment of the international community to the promotion and protection of the human rights of indigenous people. 

United Kingdom, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that aging was one of the great challenges of the twenty-first century.  The United Kingdom supported the work of the Independent Expert and the extension of her mandate.  The United Kingdom had been concerned about some areas of the resolution, and noted that the definition of violence used in some parts of the resolution was overly broad.  Human rights were universal and applied to all without distinction.  It was the common duty of all to address them.  The full implementation of international legal standards relevant to older persons needed to be continued.  Negotiations on the subject demanded consensus to move forward.

Ecuador, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, appreciated the efforts made on the draft resolution on safe drinking water.  While it supported the right to water and sanitation, it was of fundamental importance to ensure that that right, which was part of the principle of living, was in equality with others.  The right to life was essential for all other rights.  There should be no hierarchy among rights.  International parameters did not rule that each State could adopt its own principles in the exercise of human rights. 

Appointment of Members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee
 
CHOI KYONG-LIM, President of the Human Rights Council, presented the list of candidates for the members of the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council: Lazhari Bouzid (Algeria) and Mona Omar (Egypt) for the vacant seats from the African States; Xinsheng Liu (China) and Kaoru Obata (Japan) for the vacant seats from the Asia-Pacific States; Mikhail Aleksandrovich Lebedev (Russia) for the vacant seat from the Eastern European States; Carla Hananía De Varela (El Salvador) for the vacant seat from the Latin American and Caribbean States; and Jean Ziegler (Switzerland) for the vacant seat from the Western European and other States.

As the number of candidates corresponded to the number of vacant seats in each of the regional groups, and in accordance with the United Nations practice, the Council elected the candidates without a ballot.

Appointment of Special Procedure Mandate Holders

CHOI KYONG-LIM, President of the Human Rights Council, acknowledged the work accomplished by the Consultative Group in the important and labour-intensive task for the selection and appointment of Special Procedures mandate holders.  The President also acknowledged the high calibre of candidates who had applied for the positions of Special Procedures mandate holders.  The list of candidates had been circulated to all delegations on 30 August 2016, and posted on the Extranet. 

The President proposed the appointment of Ms. Cecilia Jimenez-Damary from the Philippines as the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons; Mr. Nils Melzer from Switzerland as the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;  Ms. Asma Jahangir from Pakistan as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran; Ms. Elina Steinerte from Latvia as the member from Eastern European States for the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; and Mr. Vitit Muntarbhorn from Thailand as the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The President explained that in four out of five cases, he had decided to propose, for approval by the Council, the candidate recommended and ranked first by the Consultative Group.  In one case, for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the President proposed the candidate recommended and ranked second, deciding to propose, after broad consultations, Mr. Melzer.  The President explained that this decision had been based on the nature of the mandate and Mr. Melzer’s operational and practical experience in the field of the mandate, in particular expertise in terms of visiting places of detention, which was one of the key features of the mandate.

The Council endorsed the list of candidates.

Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation except Albania, said that on the appointment of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, expressed opposition to the mandate.  Rejection of violence and discrimination in all forms against all individuals was underlined.  Protection against violence should be given to all individuals irrespective of status.  But concern was expressed over the introduction of topics that were not universally agreed on, and which impinged on religious sensitivities.  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation except Albania regretted increasing selectivity, discrimination in the core work, and furthering of the foreign policies of the few in the Council.  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation members except Albania did not recognize the establishment of the mandate-holder and would boycott the Independent Expert. 

Russian Federation objected to the appointment of the Special Procedure on protection from violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  The inadmissibility of discrimination was enshrined in the Russian Constitution and cases were investigated by competent institutions.  Everyone’s rights were protected on an equal footing.  Sexual orientation was part of an individual person’s private life and should not be interfered with.  It did not require a separate system of protection for those who made such a choice.  A separate mandate to monitor and protect a group that practiced a particular model of personal relationships was unnecessary.  It was imposing certain models of behaviour on others.  The Russian Federation regretted that the opinion of a significant majority of the international community had been ignored and the Russian Federation would not cooperate with that mandate. 

CHOI KYONG-LIM, President of the Human Rights Council, paid tribute to the important work done by the mandate holders of the Special Procedures, and echoed the concern expressed by the High Commissioner over the growing trend of States not granting access to human rights mechanisms, including the Special Procedures mandate holders.  The human rights mechanisms established by this Council were an essential piece of its work, and the President called on all States to fully cooperate with them and to respect their expertise and legitimacy.

United Kingdom expressed support for the appointment of the mandate-holders.  All those just appointed were highly qualified.  The United Kingdom believed that with respect to the Special Rapporteur on torture, all three candidates were highly qualified.

Kenya expressed appreciation to the Consultative Group.  Their efforts ensured that the Human Rights Council took on qualified individuals.  All three candidates shortlisted for Special Rapporteur on torture were eminently qualified to hold the position.  Support was expressed for the statement made by the United Kingdom, and Mr. Karim Khan was an excellent candidate.
 
Comments by Observer States

Argentina expressed support for people’s self-determination, also those who were subjected to colonial powers.  The resolutions on the Falkland Islands by the General Assembly and its Decolonisation Committee recognized the dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom.  Bilateral negotiations were needed for a peaceful solution.  Regarding the resolution on the right to drinking water and sanitation, relevant resolutions of the General Assembly were recalled.

Iran stated that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran was an abuse of the integrity of the Council’s authority and  it would lead to paralysis that would undermine dialogue and cooperation.  The extension of that mandate was politicized.  Speaking about draft resolution L.3, Iran expressed reservations towards the right to sexual and reproductive health which was not internationally recognized terminology.  As for the resolution on safety of journalists, it noted that it contained no single reference to journalists’ fundamental obligation to respect ethics.  Iran also disassociated itself from the process of drafting guidelines on equal participation in political and public affairs.  

Iraq explained with respect to the draft resolution L.5 that it could not be considered to have been submitted on behalf of the Arab Group.

Australia was pleased by the adoption of the draft resolution on national human rights institutions and the promotion of human rights, and it looked forward to the development of their engagement with United Nations treaty bodies.  Australia welcomed the strengthening of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  It also supported the resolution on transitional justice and human rights, as well as the resolution on Somalia.  It welcomed the appointment of the new Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Pakistan spoke about the resolution on human rights while countering terrorism, and said that the resolution was about the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  The right to self-determination was core, and unfortunately that right was denied by oppressive occupying powers on the pretext of counterterrorism measures.  Gross and systematic violations of human rights continued to be justified as anti-terrorism measures.  Pakistan supported the comments of the Ambassador of South Africa.

Egypt welcomed the adoption of the resolution on the right to development, and believed the mandate would be key to addressing challenges related to that right.  The Council’s adoption of the resolution on Sudan was by consensus and that was welcomed.  Regarding the resolution on prevention of maternal mortality, it was regretted that concerns were not taken into account.  Egypt aligned itself with the statement delivered by Saudi Arabia in that context.  The presentation of the resolution on Burundi without the approval of the country concerned was deplored. 

United States supported the resolution on the establishment of the commission of inquiry to look into grave human rights violations in Burundi.  The resolutions on Yemen and Syria were also strongly supported.  The renewed mandates on Sudan, Somalia and the Central African Republic were welcomed.  The United States remained a steadfast supporter of civil society and put an emphasis on the protection of journalists.  The United States congratulated the Council on the groundbreaking appointment of the mandate holder against discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Development and human rights were mutually reinforcing.

Canada, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, welcomed the adoption of the three resolutions on indigenous peoples.  It was hoped that the new mandate would enhance the situation of indigenous peoples on the ground.  Canada was pleased that the cross-regional cooperation on indigenous issues in the Council continued to develop.  Canada strongly supported the resolution on preventing maternal mortality, which was adopted by consensus.  Canada also welcomed the appointment of the new Independent Expert on gender and sexual identity. 

New Zealand, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, was pleased that the resolution on maternal mortality and morbidity had been adopted by consensus.  Some members had spoken in favour of women’s rights and then voted against paragraphs which were promoting human rights.  More than 300,000 women and girls died every year from preventable mortality and morbidity, which was regrettable.  Women had to be free to decide autonomously on the issues of their health and their bodies. 

Spain thanked all delegations which supported the resolution on safe drinking water and sanitation and was astonished that it had been put to a vote, especially because the main sponsors had been very open to accommodating different views.  Spain was surprised by the introduction of the oral amendment at the last moment and hoped that the spirit of transparency would return to the Council in the future.

Mali said that the adoption of the resolution on cultural rights and cultural heritage meant that the Council was playing its role in the protection of cultural heritage, in support of the Government of Mali which was working on the protection of the heritage in Timbuktu hand in hand with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Presentation of the Draft Report of the Thirty-Third Session of the Human Rights Council

GEERT MUYLLE, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, introducing the draft report of the thirty-third session of the Human Rights Council, said it  contained a procedural description of the work to the moment at which the Council had started taking action on draft resolution.  The Secretariat would add information on the 31 draft resolutions adopted yesterday and today.  The draft report contained 10 chapters which corresponded to the 10 agenda items of the Human Rights Council.  The texts of the adopted texts would be available in due course on the Extranet.  During the session, the Council had heard oral updates by the High Commissioner for Human Rights; held interactive dialogue with 17 Special Procedures mandate holders and the Commission of Inquiry on the human rights situation in Syria; adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of 14 countries; elected members of the Advisory Committee and appointed five Special Procedures mandate holders.  Mr. Muylle warmly thanked the President, States, civil society organizations and national human rights institutions for their active contributions to the work of the Human Rights Council.

General Concluding Remarks

United Kingdom, in general concluding remarks, said in response to Argentina that the United Kingdom had no doubt over its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.  There could be no dialogue on sovereignty unless the Falkland Islanders wished it.  The Government of Argentina should respect those wishes.

European Union said that cooperation with United Nations Special Procedures was crucial.  A number of States had declared they would not cooperate with some Special Procedures.  The European Union had a standing invitation to all Special Procedures mandate holders irrespective of whether it supported the mandate or not.  All States should see the value of cooperating with Special Procedures mandate holders. 

Russian Federation, in general concluding remarks, thanked all the delegations for their constructive work and the Secretariat, particularly the interpreters, for the smooth services provided.  

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in general concluding remarks, addressed the Council as the end of its current mandate as a Member State of the Council was nearing.  It fully supported the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner and its valuable role in promoting and protecting human rights.  No country was perfect when it came to its human rights file, but correctly recognizing the issues that required attention was a first step in that direction. 

International Service for Human Rights, in general concluding remarks, said that States would be elected to the Council which did not uphold even basic human rights standards or cooperate with the Council.  The resolution on Yemen fell short on the need to establish a full-fledged commission of inquiry.  The creation of the commission of inquiry on Burundi was welcomed.  It was deplorable that some human rights defenders had been prevented from coming to the Council.  

Arab Commission on Human Rights commended the Council for its support to civil society organizations and national human rights institutions, and hoped the investigation mechanism to look into the targeting of civilians in Somalia would be successful.  The Council remained divided, especially over Syria, despite the abominable suffering of its people over the past five years.  The failure to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was dangerous as it risked marginalizing this instrument.

President’s Concluding Remarks

CHOI KYONG-LIM, President of the Human Rights Council, in his closing remarks, said that yet again, he had received allegations of acts of intimidation and reprisals during the session, and that various representatives of civil society organizations had been banned from traveling from their home countries to Geneva to attend this session.  A human rights defender participating in this session had received intimidating messages over social media.  It was most concerning that two of the three alleged cases involved Member States of this Council.  The President had spoken with the States concerned and would continue to closely follow those, and any other cases brought to his attention.  The participation of civil society in the Human Rights Council was crucial, and any act of intimidation and reprisal against  an individual or group who cooperated with the Council was completely unacceptable.  All acts of intimidation or reprisal against those individuals and groups must end, said the President and called on States to take all necessary measures to prevent and ensure adequate protection against such acts. 

The President expressed his heartfelt gratitude to the members of the Bureau for their excellent cooperation during this session, and a sincere appreciation for the support provided by the Secretariat of the Council and the Division for Conference Management.  He expressed hope that the spirit of cooperation and dialogue that was present during this session would prevail throughout the year, and contribute to a more efficient and cooperative Council.  

__________________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on:Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr