人权理事会进行有关其附属机构和普遍定期审议的一般性辩论

人权理事会
中午

2014年6月23日

人权理事会在今天的午间会议上听取了社会论坛、农民和农村地区其他劳动者权利问题工作组和工商业与人权论坛的报告。理事会随后进行了有关其附属机构与机制以及有关普遍定期审议的一般性辩论。
 
阿根廷常驻联合国日内瓦办事处代表阿尔韦托·佩德罗·达洛托（Alberto Pedro d’Alotto）代表2014年社会论坛主席兼报告员莫妮卡·罗克（Monica Roque）作报告时表示，需出台一份为老年人人权提供适当保护的国际文书，之前也曾有人呼吁就此展开谈判。社会论坛还建议改革目前的机制，使老年人无论是否能为社会作出经济贡献都可成为权利持有者。

农民和农村地区其他劳动者权利问题工作组主席兼报告员安吉里卡·C·纳瓦罗·伊阿诺斯（Angélica C. Navarro Llanos）在介绍报告时明确表示，农民和农村地区其他劳动者处于弱势，需要受到保护以应对其面临的多种威胁，如歧视、气候变化、水资源缺乏、土地与信贷等。农民在保护生物多样性方面发挥了关键作用。宣言应明确并加强农民和农村地区其他劳动者的权利，提高现有权利的一致性和认可度，并促进各方承认土地、种子和生物多样性等新兴权利。
 
人权高专办特别程序处负责人简·康诺斯（Jane Connors）在介绍工商业与人权论坛报告时表示，第二届论坛是多方利益相关者在工商业和人权方面最大的一次全球会议。方案包括介绍创新举措，讨论区域挑战，同侪学习，克服司法补救措施方面的障碍，非司法补救措施的有效性和数字领域的人权等。第三届年度论坛将于2015年12月1日至3日在日内瓦举行。 
 
在关于人权机构和机制的一般性辩论中，发言者谈到了包括解决腐败根源问题在内的一系列问题，并一致同意给出明确而清晰的腐败定义十分有益。谈及条约机构加强进程，代表团们表示，一个能在节约成本、效率和基于预计工作量和能力建设增加工作时间中达成平衡的解决方案是朝着正确方向迈出的一步。条约机构是国际人权体系的核心，改革必须使各国更加遵守其报告义务。
 
特别程序在全球范围内的促进和保护人权工作方面发挥着重要的宣传和咨询作用，根据任务领域相关的的专业知识和经验，独立性，公正性，个人诚信和客观性选拔任务负责人十分重要。发言者强调了农民和农村地区其他劳动者的基础性作用，尤其是考虑到加强粮食安全和将农业作为消除饥饿、贫穷和社会排斥方面的决定性因素时。代表团很高兴理事会终于开始分析老年人这个值得特别关注的弱势群体的处境。

在一般性辩论中发言的有：埃塞俄比亚代表非洲集团，希腊代表欧盟，巴基斯坦代表相同意见的国家集团，洪都拉斯代38国集团，萨尔瓦多代表拉丁美洲和加勒比国家集团，巴西代表一个国家集团，印度尼西亚，中国，爱尔兰，古巴，摩洛哥，阿尔及利亚，印度，大韩民国，南非，委内瑞拉，挪威，伊朗，欧洲理事会，匈牙利，缅甸和厄瓜多尔。

以下国家人权机构和非政府组织也在一般性辩论中发言：摩洛哥国家人权理事会，国际方济会，粮食第一信息和行动网，国际民主法律工作者协会，世界巴鲁阿组织，国际佛教救济组织，庇护通道（Ayslum Access），国际穆斯林妇女联合会，世界穆斯林大会，维护暴力受害者组织，解放，欧洲第三世界中心，南美洲印第安人理事会，非洲维护人权会议，农村成年人天主教运动国际联合会，国际人权服务社，非洲文化国际组织和南风政策研究会。

理事会还就有关普遍定期审议机制的第六项议程进行了一般性辩论。

发言者强调了普遍定期审议进程对促进和保护世界各地人权的重要性和宝贵贡献。第二次审议周期应以之前提出的建议为基础，各国信守承诺也至关重要。保持该进程的普适性，各国专注于人权而不是提出双边问题、表明政治立场或根据提出建议的国家而非建议内容本身作出响应都十分关键。发言者还对针对与理事会、特别在普遍定期审议机制背景下合作的个人和团体的威胁和报复数量激增表示关切。应加强落实普遍定期审议自愿基金会，尤其是用于帮助最不发达国家和小岛国。 
 
在一般性辩论中发言的有：埃塞俄比亚代表非洲集团，希腊代表欧盟，摩洛哥代表法语国家集团，埃及代表阿拉伯集团，俄罗斯，中国，爱尔兰，印度，苏丹，欧洲理事会，芬兰，多哥，丹麦和亚美尼亚。

理事会将于今天举行全日会议，并于今天下午3点举行有关预防和消除童婚、早婚和强迫婚姻的小组讨论。

文件
 
理事会已收到人权理事会咨询委员会关于在灾后和冲突后增进和保护人权的最佳做法和主要挑战的研究报告进展报告（A/HRC/26/40）
 
理事会已收到人权理事会咨询委员会关于人权领域国际合作的方式和方法的研究报告（A/HRC/26/41）
 
理事会已收到人权理事会咨询委员会关于腐败对享受人权的负面影响的进展报告（A/HRC/26/42）
 
理事会已收到人权理事会社会论坛的报告（A/HRC/26/46）
 
理事会已收到联合国工商业与人权论坛的报告（A/HRC/26/26）
 
理事会已收到编制联合国关于农民和农村地区其他劳动者权利宣言的不限名额政府间工作组报告（A/HRC/26/48）
 
Presentation of Reports
 
ALBERTO PEDRO D’ALOTTO, Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations Office at Geneva, presenting the report of the Social Forum, on behalf of Monica Roque, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 2014 Social Forum, expressed gratitude for the election of Argentina as Chair of the Forum.  In the three days during which the Forum was held, a rich debate was held with exchanges of points of view on the needs of elderly persons.  It was clear that more protection was needed for them nationally and internationally.  On the right to health, not only was a demographic transformation being seen, but also an epidemiological one.  Long term care was thus key for all elderly persons.  On legal aspects of national and international protection for elderly persons, mechanisms to guarantee the economic, social, cultural and political rights were lacking or inadequate.  An international instrument was needed to ensure adequate protection of human rights of the elderly and there had been an urgent call for the negotiation of this.  One of the Forum’s outcomes was that all actors had to strive to make it a reality that elderly persons were treated equally and without discrimination.  There had been a recommendation to change the current paradigm to one in which the elderly could be rights holders regardless of whether or not they could economically contribute to their societies, as they contributed in so many other ways.  Awareness-raising for a society that would promote active aging and the empowerment of elderly persons was the responsibility of everyone.
 
ANGÉLICA C. NAVARRO LLANOS, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, presenting the report, said that the first meeting of the Working Group had taken place from 15 to 19 July 2013 in which States, international organizations, civil society organizations and associations of peasants had taken part.  The three round tables had addressed the issues of the importance of peasants and their contribution to food security, the fight against climate change and the preservation of biodiversity; the human right situation of peasants, particularly with regard to discrimination, poverty and hunger; and the need for a United Nations Declaration on the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas.  This first session had been an important opportunity for all stakeholders to discuss the issues and the multiple threats peasants faced, such as discrimination, climate change, and lack of access to water, land and credit.  Clearly, peasants and other persons working in rural areas were vulnerable and in need of protection from various threats they faced.  It also became evident that peasants and other persons working in rural areas also played key role in the conservation and preservation of biodiversity and were a reservoir of traditional knowledge for food production and ecosystems management. 
 
Discrimination, land tenure security and forced displacement were great threats to the lives and subsistence of peasants.  Peasants lacked access to justice and often their individual and collective rights were not recognized.  The declaration should identify and strengthen the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas; increase coherence and visibility of existing rights; and facilitate recognition of new rights such as the right to land, seeds and biodiversity.  During the first reading of the draft Declaration, it became clear that there were some States which strongly supported the declaration on the rights of peasants, while others had objections about the wording of the text and the process.
 
JANE CONNORS, Chief of the Special Procedures Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, presenting the report of the Forum on Business and Human Rights, said the second annual Forum was held at the Palais des Nations from 2 to 4 December 2013 and had contributed to a number of achievements.  It had built upon the success and high interest in the first Forum held in 2012, making it the largest global gathering for multi-stakeholder dialogue on business and human rights.  Over three days, participants took part in a rich programme that catered for different areas of interest and different levels of knowledge of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.  In total, there were 20 official panel sessions and 25 side events.  The preparatory day combined a training session on the Guiding Principles, presentations of innovative initiatives, discussions on regional challenges and peer learning and exchanges on single stakeholder perspectives.  In the official opening of the Forum, the Working Group highlighted the key principles that guided its preparation of the Forum, including an emphasis on all three pillars of the Guiding Principles; a commitment to ensure constructive, multi-stakeholder dialogue; and the need to address impunity.  Panel sessions had followed on how to overcome barriers to judicial remedies; the effectiveness of non-judicial remedies; and human rights in the digital domain, among others.
 
The third annual Forum would be held from 1 to 3 December 2014 in Geneva.  Some lessons learned from the second Forum included the need to increase business participation, as well as enhance representation from all regions.  The next Forum would have a substantial focus on the third pillar of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, ‘access to effective remedy,’ among other items.  With so many activities in this field, it was highly important to bring together relevant players every year to take stock of ongoing efforts and of new opportunities and challenges in the area of business and human rights.  States, business enterprises, non-governmental organizations and all other stakeholders had to continue to use the Forum as a unique platform that provided the best opportunity to engage in frank and respectful dialogue on how to continue making progress in this area, and thus prevent and address effectively human rights violations that could take place all over the world.
 
General Debate on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms
 
Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption had been adopted in recognition that corruption undermined accountability and transparency in the management of public affairs.  It was important to address the causes of corruption by formulating and pursuing as a matter of priority policies including legislative and preventive measures to protect society against corruption.  The African Group would continue to play a constructive role in improving existing instruments to secure the rights of small scale farmers to improve the quality of livelihoods and to bridge the gap between rural and urban populations.
 
Greece, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that it would continue to stand against attempts of any kind or form to micromanage the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Only a balanced solution which addressed cost savings and efficiency, and additional meeting time on the basis of estimated burden of work and capacity building, could provide a credible step towards strengthening the treaty body system; the reform must lead to a higher level of compliance by States with their reporting obligations.  In spite of the concerns regarding the substance and process of the draft declaration on the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas, the European Union had engaged constructively in the discussion and hoped that the new text would answer its concerns.  
 
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of a Group of Likeminded Countries, said that Special Procedures played very important advocacy and advisory functions for the promotion and protection of human rights across the globe.  It was crucial that the process of selection of the mandate holders, as well as the functioning and renewal of the mandates should be guided strictly by the Council’s Institution Building Package and should be based on expertise, experience in the field of the mandate, independence, impartiality, personal integrity and objectivity.  Consideration should be given to gender balance and equitable geographic representation as well as to an appropriate representation of different legal systems.
 
Honduras, speaking on behalf of a group of 38 States, stressed the importance of strengthening cooperation between States and Special Procedures, and of improving system-wide follow-up and the implementation of recommendations.  The ability of mandate-holders to build and work in a cooperative relationship with States was an important determinant of the mechanism’s influence and impact.  A country visit and the presentation of a report and recommendations should be seen as the beginning of cooperation.  All stakeholders shared a responsibility to work in that spirit, including through maintaining a continued constructive dialogue.
 
El Salvador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, highlighted the fundamental role of peasants and other persons working in rural areas, whose rights had to be protected and promoted.  On the occasion of the International Year of Family Farming, El Salvador stressed the need to reinforce food security and the development of agriculture as decisive factors in eradicating hunger, poverty and social exclusion, which was a fundamental precondition for human rights. El Salvador was pleased that the Council had finally started to analyze the situation of elderly persons, a particularly vulnerable group warranting special attention.
 
Brazil, speaking on behalf of a group of States, noted that 80 per cent of the people that suffered from extreme poverty and hunger lived and worked in rural areas in developing countries.  Brazil believed that 2014 was an opportunity for Governments to incorporate peasants, namely subsistence or resource poor farmers, smallholder farmers, landless people and those living from traditional fishing and hunting.  An adoption of a declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas would represent an important contribution to the efforts of the international community in that regard.  The mandate of the Working Group should be renewed.
 
Indonesia said that as an agricultural country with over 39,33 million of its peoples working as farmers, it viewed the promotion and protection of the rights of its farmers with importance.  In addition to efforts to safeguard farmers, the Indonesian Government was of the view that empowerment also had an important role to achieve better welfare of farmers.  The Working Group could contribute positively to enhancing understanding on the issue of the rights of peasants and others working in rural areas. 
 
China had agreed to give more support to the Universal Periodic Review process.  In the field of technical cooperation, South-South or tri partite cooperation should be a supplement and not a substitute to North-South cooperation.  Eliminating the negative impact of corruption was an important matter.  Respect for and protection of human rights was important for the Chinese Government on various levels.  China had strengthened cooperation with the United Nations mechanism on corruption and adopted many measures and laws to eliminate discrimination against elderly persons.  
 
Ireland said human rights treaty bodies were central to the international human rights system.  By strengthening these bodies, the protection of human rights was undoubtedly also strengthened.  Ireland particularly welcomed the unequivocal condemnation in General Assembly resolution 68/268 of reprisals against those that contributed to the work of the human rights treaty bodies.  While much progress had been made, challenges remained.  The outcome of the intergovernmental treaty body strengthening process should be viewed as an opportunity for a new beginning.
 
Cuba highlighted the work done on the draft declaration on the rights of peasants and other persons working in rural areas.  The holding of a Social Forum had demonstrated the importance of bringing attention to the question of the rights of old persons.  Cuba believed that the Special Procedures were an important tool, whose effectiveness could be strengthened if they were conducted under the highest human and professional standards.  Rushing to value judgments ought to be avoided, as well as interference in sovereign matters of States.
 
Morocco welcomed the fact that the link between corruption and violations of human rights had been confirmed by the Advisory Committee.  The link between corruption and human rights was  a matter of public interest, and good practices in that field should be shared.  It would be useful to have a clear, distinct definition of corruption.  Morocco, together with the members of the core group, would present a draft decision on the subject matter, which would request that the Advisory Committee submit its final report to the Council in March 2015.
 
Algeria said that the Second Forum on Business and Human Rights had been a success, and strengthening the implementation of the Guidelines was now important.  The lack of mechanisms for establishing accountability and remedies required was a problem, which was why an internationally binding legal instrument would be a noteworthy initiative.  The Special Procedures had to be free from any attempts to be selective and politicized, and it was essential to ensure that the selection process for mandate holders was transparent and to take into consideration independence, objectivity and equitable geographic distribution.
 
India said that the Special Procedures were an important mechanism of the Council and it was of fundamental importance that mandate holders remained truly impartial and independent.  India regretted that despite concerns voiced in the past, some mandate-holders continued to disregard the Code of Conduct.  Recommendations should also conform to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and be constructive and relative to the country.    There was deep concern at increasing politicization in the selection of the Special Procedures. 
 
Republic of Korea said that, as it had indicated in the twelfth session of the Advisory Committee, a clear definition for local government needed to be established and the future debate on the roles of local government should remain both non-political and practical.  It attached great importance to business and human rights.  However, given that it was just three years ago that the Guiding Principles were adopted, it had doubts on the usefulness of starting a process of creating a new binding international instrument at this juncture. 
 
South Africa said the severe vulnerabilities of peasants which were precipitated by the phenomenon of globalization made it absolutely necessary for the Human Rights Council to take appropriate interventions to protect the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas.  South Africa maintained that transnational corporations and other business enterprises had to bear direct accountability under human rights law and international humanitarian law for human rights violations in their operational activities.
 
Venezuela was glad to hear the presentation focus on the rights of older persons, which emphasized the need to enhance their protection and guarantee their pensions, regardless of their capacity to contribute.  Venezuela recognized the importance of the Social Forum in promoting the protection of human rights, which was why Venezuela would continue to support its work.  The positive role of peasants and persons working in rural areas to global food security should be recognized.  Venezuela supported the drafting of a new international instrument on the rights of persons living in rural areas.
 
Norway noted that the number of participants in the Social Forum had made it a success, as it had become an important stage for engagement across all stakeholders.  Norway believed that there had to be room for both voicing concerns and grievances as well as sharing of lessons learned.  Business enterprises ought to be engaged more effectively, and topics in the Forum had to be also tailored to the needs of business.  Victims should be engaged, which should help clarify some of the most challenging issues in the field.
 
Iran thought that there was a dire need for the careful examination of infrastructural obstacles for the full realization of international cooperation in the field of human rights.  Cultural intolerance, mistrust, and lack of respect for the diversity of others’ traditions and religions were among main obstacles that seriously harmed the enhancement of international cooperation.  The Human Rights Council was expected to focus on constructive international dialogue, cooperation and capacity building to ensure the realization of human rights for all.  
 
Council of Europe said that, with regards to the internet, all institutions of the Council of Europe had the objective of protecting freedom of expression and other rights of internet users.  The European Court of Human Rights had stated that States had to ensure protection for the private lives of citizens on the internet.  The Court had also recalled that there should be protection of the freedom of expression for journalists with regards to the internet.  Journalists had to be able to carry out their work without fear of sanctions that may hinder them. 
 
Hungary shared the view that it was unacceptable that civil society paid the ultimate price for peaceful and legitimate interaction with the United Nations and its human rights mechanisms.  It was therefore alarmed to learn about recent cases of arrest, detention or intimidation of individuals in relation to their work and engagement with United Nations mechanisms in Geneva, but also in New York.  Reprisals undermined the effective functioning not only of the Council and its Special Procedures, but of the entire United Nations system.
 
Myanmar said that one of the cornerstones of its foreign policy was its cooperation with the United Nations.  Although always opposed to country specific mandates, Myanmar had extended invitations to the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar.  At this juncture, it regretted to draw attention to public statements and communications by certain Special Rapporteurs.  Myanmar requested the Human Rights Council to ensure that the Special Procedures mandate-holders complied with the Code of Conduct. 
 
Ecuador, concerning the report of the Working Group on the rights of peasants, underscored the importance of maintaining a dialogue with a view to drafting a United Nations declaration on this subject; and stressed that its first meeting constituted a significant step towards the strengthening of international instruments regarding the situation of peasants.  Concerning the forum on businesses and human rights, Ecuador suggested gearing the discussion towards victims and specific aspects, as well as facilitating the participation of non-governmental organizations.
 
National Council for Human Rights of Morocco, in the context of the implementation of the plan of action on business and human rights, drew attention to different activities implemented in Morocco under its different pillars, including a multi-stakeholders’ seminar and groundwork on domestic workers.  The National Council had also organised events at the national level and would begin programmes concerning the plan of action.
 
Franciscans International recognised the forum as a platform for victims to engage in dialogue with other stakeholders but highlighted the need to enhance the forum as a vehicle for the formulation of recommendations.  Franciscans International called on the Government of the Philippines to ensure the protection of indigenous peoples in mining areas and to ensure that their rights were respected.
 
Foodfirst Information and Action Network supported the adoption of a United Nations declaration on the human rights of peasants and people living in rural communities.  Such a regulatory framework was needed as they were the ones suffering most from hunger and extreme poverty.  The situation of rural women was of particular concern.  States were called upon to vote in favour of the resolution tabled by Bolivia, and to actively support the work of the Working Group in its coming sessions. 
 
International Association of Democratic Lawyers said that enough food was produced in the world to feed everyone, but one out of seven people in the world was still hungry.  Hunger was a result of deliberate economic policies promoted by rich countries and transnational corporations.  Several private enterprises interested in amalgamating their profits were destroying the environment and thus condemning to death millions of citizens.  All States should take part in the work of the intergovernmental Working Group on that subject.
 
World Barua Organization stated that every victim of a human rights violation had the right to the restoration of their violated rights and redress of grievances.  In northeast India, impunity remained a serious problem, particularly for abuses committed by security forces.  United Nations mechanisms were called upon to impress upon the Indian Government to honour the human rights and the right to peace of its people.
 
International Buddhist Relief Organization underscored, in the context of India, the importance of engagement with the Special Procedures.  The visit of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions had opened up space for the Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association to approach the Supreme Court of India to seek justice in 1,528 cases of extrajudicial killings in the State of Manipur.  
 
Asylum Access was pleased that the Forum and the Working Group had focused attention on the rights and needs of individuals at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization.  The Working Group was urged to include refugees and asylum seekers in its strategic consideration and methods of work in implementing the Guiding Principles.
 
International Muslim Women’s Union said that the Special Procedures were a vital part of the United Nations human rights machinery.  However, human rights defenders in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir were facing reprisals for cooperating with Special Procedures.  All States had to ensure that reprisals against persons cooperating with United Nations mechanisms had to end.
 
World Muslim Congress recognised the attention paid to the issue of reprisals and intimidation against individuals and groups cooperating with the Council but much more needed to be done.  Despite the whole system of Special Procedures, defenders in conflict zones in territories under foreign occupation continued to be intimidated, harassed and even killed.  In Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir human rights defenders were facing the worst kind of reprisals.
 
Organization for Defending Victims of Violence said that peace and security were challenged by ethnic conflict.  While the protection of minorities as an specific item had appeared in human rights studies, covenants and resolutions, the way in which the general principle for the protection of the rights of minorities was implemented was a question that had not been answered.  Identifying between extremist groups and the real defenders could serve as a first step in the reduction of violence.
 
Reporters Without Borders said that surveillance technologies were being used for repressive means, including repression and torture.  A protective legal framework was necessary to address this situation, including the sale of surveillance equipment leading to human rights violations.  The Council must lead efforts towards effective measures to address these abuses, such as strengthening the Working Group to respond to complaints.
 
Liberation said that the work of the civil sector in India had contributed to the protection of the environment and reigning in the Government and the private sector which were bringing poverty onto rural people.  The Government had now delayed money transfers from foreign donors to environmental non-governmental organizations.  The Council was deplored to take action on the worsening situation of the civil sector in India.
 
Centre Europe-Tiers Monde stated that landless peasants and those living from traditional fishing and hunting were often the first victims of discrimination.  The human rights instruments were not sufficient to protect the human rights of such people, which was why the Human Rights Council should adopt a declaration on the rights of peasants.  It was important to follow up on the work of the existing Working Group.
 
Indian Council of South America said that the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples was a polarizing issue.  The General Assembly was conducting pro forme consultations at the moment, with many individuals and puppet groups claiming to represent regions that they in reality were not representing.  That oversight by the Human Rights Council ought to be rectified.
 
Rencontre Africaine Pour la Defense des Droits de l'Homme took note of the report on corruption and human rights.  Since the adoption of the African Union Convention on the Prevention of Corruption, many countries had set up mechanisms to address corruption.  Lack of transparency posed a significant challenge to combat corruption and currently many countries did not require the appropriate registration mechanisms concerning companies’ ownership, property and commercial transactions.
 
International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movement noted that a large number of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition were rural workers, which was a paradox arising from human rights violations.  The project declaration emphasised the equality of peasants and the non-discriminatory enjoyment of rights.  Peasants’ activities could contribute to a sustainable economy and the Federation supported the Working Group.
 
International Service for Human Rights said more was needed to reassure human rights defenders that the United nations was serious about their protection.  The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights had led the way in designating a reprisals focal point.  A more robust, coordinated United Nations response to challenge reprisals was urgently needed. 
 
Africa Culture International said that the term social responsibility meant that business should take care of its actions, be diligent and observe international instruments for the protection of human rights.  Given the increased poverty, many Governments regrettably refused to recognize trade unions as indispensable partners in the process of development of their countries.
 
Sudwind hoped that the election of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations would have enough candidates from regions where human rights defenders were oppressed, such as from Iran.  Sudwind regretted that States did not respond to the Special Procedures in a timely, proper and substantive manner. States were urged to cooperate fully with the Special Procedures.
 
General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review
 
Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that it attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review, away from politicization and selectivity.  The African Group reiterated its call for the full respect of the General Assembly resolution 60/251 with a view to preserving that mechanism from any attempt to undermine its founding principles.  The Voluntary Fund for the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review should be strengthened, especially to help least developed and small island States. 
 
Greece, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that since its establishment the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had steadily contributed to the protection and promotion of human rights at the country level throughout the world.  The second cycle should build on the outcome of the first one, in order to avoid gaps, and it was important to keep States accountable for their commitments.  While the relations between States and independent non-governmental organizations were exemplary in many cases, the European Union was concerned by increasingly frequent incidents of harassment, intimidation and reprisals towards civil society representatives and their organizations related to their participation.  
 
Morocco, speaking on behalf of the Groupe Francophone, shared some of the conclusions of the seminar held in Chisinau from 11 to 12 April 2014, in collaboration with the Republic of Moldova, including the need for coherence and synergy in the support provided to States for the implementation of national priorities; the promotion of a dialogue between States and other partners for the implementation of recommendations; and exchanging information regarding assessments and strategies for implementation.  Recommendations should be practical, constructive, forward looking and implementable, and a mid-term report two years after the review was necessary to track implementation.
 
Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, reiterated that the Universal Periodic Review process was one of the most important mechanisms for the protection of human rights, which emphasized the importance of all States undergoing the review.  In order to ensure the mechanism would succeed, strict rules were necessary without politicizing the process.  Concerning equality, the Arab Group welcomed the assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner and encouraged the establishment of clear plans and programmers on the basis of the recommendations accepted.
 
Russia said that the Universal Periodic Review had already shown its effectiveness and that almost all States tried to improve their human rights situations in line with the recommendations received in their reviews.  It was essential that the Universal Periodic Review process remained independent and impartial as this was the best mechanism to counter country-specific resolutions and mandates.
 
China believed that the Universal Periodic Review as a mechanism was an important platform for countries to conduct frank dialogue on human rights situations, which should remain free from selectivity and politicization.  All countries should capitalize on this mechanism to share good practices in the promotion and protection of human rights and States should understand the situation of the State under review and keep the recommendations realistic and appropriate.
 
Ireland said that key to the Universal Periodic Review process was its universal character and that all States should focus exclusively on human rights and not raise bilateral issues, score political points or take positions on recommendations based on the identity of States making them rather than on their content.  It was not an acceptable practice for States under review to negotiate changes to recommendations after they had been made.  Due respect must be given to all stakeholders in the process, States, civil society, national human rights institutions or United Nations bodies.
 
India said that the Universal Periodic Review was one of the most significant mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, and commended contributions of all to make it a success.  There was broad agreement that the process had made a tangible contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights all over the world.  India was concerned over the so-called “media highlights” on the Universal Periodic Review website of the Office of the High Commissioner, which was often selective and subjective.
 
Sudan reiterated its support to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and reaffirmed that its exploitation by some countries for political purposes did not help realize the desired objectives of the mechanism.  It should remain free from politicization and double standards, while new legal criteria which were not mutually agreed upon should not be imposed.  Sudan stressed the importance of technical assistance and capacity building in accordance with States’ needs.
 
Council of Europe noted positive developments regarding the Universal Periodic Review process, including the affirmation of the universal nature of the process, which brought together all States, a better understanding of the nature of problems that human rights organizations were faced with, and increased transparency as far as the work of Governments was concerned.  It was regrettable that there was no possibility for the direct involvement of the Council of Europe in the Universal Periodic Review Working Group.
 
Finland informed that Finland had submitted its voluntary mid-term report, including an annex containing a separate submission by its autonomous and independent national human rights institution.  The review mechanism provided an important channel to elaborate on national achievements and challenges in a constructive and equal manner based on true dialogue among States; and had been a positive experience and civil society had largely contributed: a well-functioning civil society was an essential part of the implementation infrastructure.
 
Togo attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review process as an effective mechanism to protecting human rights in the field.  During its first cycle, held in 2011, Togo had accepted 122 out of 133 recommendations and over 23 had begun to be implemented.  Togo had also submitted a mid-term report which presented a detailed table reporting on efforts accomplished in the field of strengthening State institutions, harmonisation of domestic norms and international standards, among others. 
 
Denmark recalled that during its first review cycle, Denmark had pledged to deliver a voluntary mid-term review of the implementation of the accepted recommendations.  Denmark had accepted a further 20 of the 49 recommendations that had been rejected at the review examination in 2011, relating to the accession to the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, penal code provisions concerning racism, rape and sexual assault, and the establishment of an independent Ombudsman for children.
 
Armenia said that it was not possible to avoid politicization of the Universal Periodic Review process as in many cases human rights and politics were interrelated.  It was regrettable to see some States refusing recommendations addressed to them for political reasons, trying to give new interpretation to the human rights framework.  The Universal Periodic Review should be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information.
 _________

For use of the information media; not an official record