理事会设立与白化病人相关的任务，延长与文化权利、环境和私营军事公司相关的任务（部分翻译）

中午

2015年3月26日

通过有关使用无人机、残疾人、非法资金、外债、食物权和出生登记等问题的其他10项文本

人权理事会在一个午间会议上通过了13项决议和1份主席声明，在其中设立了一项有关白化病人享有人权问题独立专家的任务，延长了文化领域特别报告员、人权和环境问题独立专家和监管、监测和监督私营军事和保安公司活动的国际规章框架问题不限成员名额政府间工作组的任务期限。

主席声明与第二次世界大战结束七十周年纪念相关，其他决议与人权高专办工作人员组成、加强人权领域国际合作、在反恐和军事行动中使用武装无人机、残疾人权利、非法资金、外债、食物权、社会与文化权利和出生登记等相关。

理事会决定任命一名有关白化病人享有人权问题的独立专家，任期为三年；将文化权利领域特别报告员和人权与环境问题独立专家的任务再延长三年，并以32票赞成、13票反对和2票弃权的结果将监管、监测和监督私营军事和保安公司活动的国际规章框架问题不限成员名额政府间工作组的任务期限延长三年。

在有关第二次世界大战结束七十周年的主席声明中，理事会呼吁各国团结一致应对国际和平和安全面临的挑战，而联合国则在其中发挥了核心作用。

理事会以31票赞成、16票反对和0票弃权的结果要求高级专员在实现工作人员更广泛的地域多样性方面确定具体和公开的目标和截止日期，并考虑对办事处中已经人数超出比例的国家和地区设定上限。在另一份有关国际合作的文本中，理事会要求人权高专办加强与来自非传统捐助国代表的对话，以扩大捐助基础并为普遍定期审议资源信托基金和财政和技术援助自愿基金提供更多可用资源。

在一项以29票赞成、6票反对和12票弃权的结果通过的决议中，理事会邀请人权事务高级专员、特别程序和人权条约机构在各自任务框架内关注使用遥控飞行器和武装无人机造成的违反国际人权法的行为。在一项以33票赞成、2票反对和12票弃权的结果通过的文本中，理事会要求外债影响问题独立专家考虑其任务中关于非法资金流动对享受人权影响的问题，并召开一场关于该问题的专家会议。理事会以31票赞成、14票反对和1票弃权的结果谴责了秃鹫基金的活动并要求独立专家就国家外债和其他有关国际金融义务对充分享有所有人权的影响问题向联合国大会报告。

在食物权方面，理事会对世界仍有令人不可接受的大量饥饿人口深表关切，并要求食物权问题特别报告员继续监督世界粮食危机的演变。在出生登记方面，理事会要求人权事务高级专员与联合国统计司积极合作以强化目前旨在实现普遍出生登记和重要数据进展的政策和方案，并向理事会第三十三届会议提交有关这些努力的报告。在残疾人问题方面，理事会呼吁各国确保残疾人在法律面前获得同等承认，并确保他们在掌握其生活方面与他人拥有同等集会。在经济、社会与文化权利方面，理事会敦促各国将最低社会保障标准作为全面社会保障体系的一部分。

介绍文本的有古巴、伊朗代表不结盟运动、巴基斯坦、新西兰、墨西哥、阿尔及利亚代表非洲集团、哥斯达黎加、摩洛哥、葡萄牙、土耳其和墨西哥。

爱尔兰、古巴、墨西哥、巴基斯坦、巴西、拉脱维亚代表欧盟、英国、法国、委内瑞拉、日本、美国和印度发表了一般性意见。

拉脱维亚代表欧盟、博茨瓦纳、巴拉圭、纳米比亚、美国、中国、阿根廷、巴西（联合声明）、墨西哥、巴西和南非在投票前或投票后作解释发言。

理事会将于今天下午4点恢复工作，届时将继续对决议草案采取行动。

Action on Presidential Statement under the Agenda Item on Organizational and Procedural Matters

Action on Presidential Statement on the Seventieth Anniversary of the End of the Second World War

In a statement by the President of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/28/L.40) on the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, adopted without a vote, the Council recalls that 2015 marks the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, a war which brought untold sorrow to humankind, particularly in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific and other parts of the world; pays tribute to all victims of the Second World War, including victims of the Holocaust, war crimes and crimes against humanity; and stresses that this historic event established the conditions for the creation of the United Nations, designed to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small. The Council calls upon the Member States of the United Nations to unite their efforts in dealing with challenges and threats to international peace and security, with the United Nations playing a central role, and refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, and to settle all disputes by peaceful means in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

JOACHIM RÜCKER, President of the Human Rights Council, presented draft Presidential Statement Human Rights Council L.44 on the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. The draft Presidential Statement had been circulated to all delegations.

Action on Resolution under the Agenda Item on Annual Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Action on Resolution on the Composition of the Staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.13) on the composition of staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 16 against and no abstentions as orally revised, the Council expresses serious concern at the fact that, despite the measures reported by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the imbalance in the geographical representation of its composition continues to be prominent, and that a single region occupies almost half of the posts in the Office of the High Commissioner; requests the High Commissioner to establish specific and public targets and deadlines to achieve the broadest geographical diversity of his staff by strengthening the measures aimed at achieving a better representation of countries and regions that are unrepresented or underrepresented, particularly from the developing world, while considering applying a cap on the representation of countries and regions already overrepresented; invites the General Assembly and its appropriate subsidiary bodies to give consideration to the present resolution and, as necessary, to the relevant sections of the report of the Joint Inspection Unit to the implementation of this resolution; requests the High Commissioner to submit a comprehensive and updated report on this resolution to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-third session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Maldives, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (16): Albania, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

Abstentions (0):


Before the resolution was adopted, the Council voted on whether to keep operational paragraph 17 or to delete it. It decided to keep the operational paragraph with a vote of 24 in favour, 19 against and 4 abstentions.

Cuba, introducing draft resolution L.13 on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said, that if the text was adopted the Council would reaffirm the importance of achieving regional balance of staff representation in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and overcome the current imbalance in the Office. Cuba requested the High Commissioner to undertake measures to rectify this situation and establish targets and deadlines. Cuba had opened consultations and bilateral exchanges in the spirit of dialogue and the main concerns and proposals of the outcome of these were reflected in the text. Cuba was convinced that some developed countries would allege that the Human Rights Council was not competent to vote on this issue. These were countries which upheld the status quo, which had hidden agendas, and which held the majority of the posts. Cuba urged countries that were not represented or underrepresented to vote for this resolution. Cuba then introduced oral amendments to the draft text.

Ireland, speaking in a general comment, said the issue of the composition of staff of the Office of the High Commissioner had in the past generated different views, including on the fact that this should be discussed within the Fifth Committee. The draft resolution before the Council today however went beyond the issue of staff composition. It contained reference to the report by the Joint Investigation Unit that would fundamentally undermine the independence of the High Commissioner by introducing politicized oversight of the Office. In addition to this key concern, the Joint Investigation Unit-related part was not relevant to the matter and dealt with matters outside of the competence of the Council. Operational paragraph 17 had to be voted on separately. Ireland would vote against it and called on all delegations to do the same.

Cuba, speaking in a general comment, requested all members of the Council to vote in favour of operational paragraph 17, which had been discussed and amended as part of a constructive negotiation process. The General Assembly had been invited to consider this resolution, and the Joint Investigation Unit report was therefore a source that ought not to be disregarded. If this paragraph was deleted, Western countries would still refuse to address the geographic imbalance of the Office of the High Commissioner. Cuba called on all members to vote in favour of operational paragraph 17.

Mexico, speaking in a general comment, said that it had always promoted greater geographic representation in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This was why in the past it had co-sponsored and favoured this resolution. In the initial consultations, Mexico had expressed deep concern that the text did not reflect only on the composition of staff. The resolution included texts which were not acceptable to Mexico and were a move to limit the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the High Commissioner. Mexico expressed disagreement with recommendation 1 of the resolution. Thus Mexico supported the position of Ireland, namely that operational paragraph 17 should be voted upon separately.

Pakistan, speaking in a general comment, said that it believed that equal geographical representation in the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was crucial. It was unacceptable that staff decisions were made solely on competence, while disregarding geographical representation. Unfortunately the question of equal geographical representation in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights still remained a challenge. The under-representation of developing countries in the senior staff undermined the United Nations and its recruitment process. This resolution was an important milestone. Pakistan strongly supported the draft text and would vote in favour of it.

Brazil, speaking in a general comment, said it had traditionally supported the resolutions on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and said it supported the role of the Joint Investigation Unit. Brazil underlined the importance of promoting geographical balance in the staff of the Office.

Latvia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said that the resolution was a part of a long cycle of resolutions and said that the Council had no competence in dealing with personnel issues. Some of the paragraphs in the proposed texts were problematic for different reasons and the General Assembly was the only competent body to address the issues of budget and resources, including human resources. The European Union could not support L.13 and called for a vote. The European Union Member States that were members of the Human Rights Council would vote against.

Botswana, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that this resolution was really important for developing countries and believed that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was crucial for the advancement of the human rights agenda. It was important to avoid encroachment on the independence of the Office and Botswana would be voting in favour with the understanding that it would address only the issue of equitable geographical representation among the staff.

Paraguay, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said it voted in favour of the draft on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It voted in favour on the understanding that operational paragraph 17 did not affect the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Namibia, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that while having voted in favour, it did not wish for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to be micro-managed. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had to operate freely. The unequitable geographic representation of the Office was unacceptable.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that it strongly supported the principle of the highest standard of efficiency, competence, and integrity in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Recommendations made by the Human Rights Council would impinge upon the independence of the High Commissioner if carried out. It was important that States had a limited role in the management of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and that it continued its objective and independent reporting to the United Nations Secretary-General and not to the Human Rights Council. For these reasons the United States voted no on the resolution.

China, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that the Chinese delegation had always advocated balanced and geographic composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Concrete action had to be taken and there was a need to review and implement the decision by the Joint Inspection Unit. Therefore China was in favour of the orally revised resolution.

Argentina, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said it supported the resolution and operational paragraph 17 and attached great importance to balanced geographical representation among the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Argentina underlined however the importance of maintaining the independence of the Office.

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 the Enhancement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.1) on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Office of the High Commissioner to seek to enhance dialogue with representatives from non-traditional donor countries with a view to broaden the donor base and replenish the resources available to the Universal Periodic Review Voluntary Trust Fund and the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to make clear the process by which States request assistance from both funds, and to process such requests in a timely and transparent manner that adequately responds to the requesting States; requests all Member States and the United Nations system to foster complementarities among North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation aiming at the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; and urges States to continue to support both funds.

Iran, introducing resolution L.1 on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the resolution reiterated the joint commitment to promote international cooperation in order to improve the living conditions in all States. It requested Member States and the United Nations system to foster complementarities among North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation. The draft resolution also reaffirmed the duty of States to cooperate with one another in the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights for all. It highlighted the resolve of the international community to preserve cultural diversity within and between communities and nations in order to create a harmonious multicultural world.

Latvia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, expressed appreciation about the transparent and constructive negotiation process conducted by Iran. The European Union was fully committed to international cooperation. At the same time, the European Union stressed that the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights lay with States, and technical cooperation should not be viewed as a condition for the protection of human rights. Asking for a summary report on the results of the High Level Panel on Human Rights Mainstreaming would have been more relevant. Cultural rights were an integral part of human rights, and the resolution should have emphasized this more. In a spirit of compromise, the European Union would join the consensus on this resolution.

Action on Resolution on Ensuring the Use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft or Armed Drones in Counterterrorism and Military Operations in Accordance with International Law, including International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.2) on ensuring use of remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones in counter-terrorism and military operations in accordance with international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law, adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, 6 against and 12 abstentions, the Council invites the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures of the Human Rights Council and the human rights treaty bodies to pay attention, within the framework of their mandates, to violations of international law as a result of the use of remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones; and decides to remain seized of the matter.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (29): Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, China, Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (6): France, Japan, Republic of Korea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

Abstentions (12): Albania, Bangladesh, Côte d’Ivoire, Estonia, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Latvia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, and United Arab Emirates,


Pakistan, introducing draft resolution L.2 on ensuring use of remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones in counterterrorism and military operations in accordance with international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, said that consistent with the principle policy of avoiding confrontation, the document did not refer to any country and sought consensus. The human rights implication of the use of armed drones was an issue firmly within the remit of the Human Rights Council and the existing legal framework was sufficient and clear. International and human rights law was applicable at all times and armed drones were not always used in the context of an armed conflict. Where there were credible allegations of violations of international law, States were under the obligation to carry out prompt, independent and impartial investigations, and to make the results publicly available. States had a duty of public examination to victims and to the international community. States should permit judicial review of the claims alleging grave violations of domestic and international law, and should be more transparent in their use of drones as a precondition to any meaningful accountability, including by providing information about the legal basis for the use of drones and facts about specific strikes.

United Kingdom, speaking in a general comment, remained of the view that the Human Rights Council was not an appropriate forum to discuss military weapons systems. Resolution L.2 wrongly identified remotely piloted aircraft as a special case. Thematic discussion of weapons systems was not under the mandate of the Human Rights Council and thus the United Kingdom could not support the resolution.

France, speaking in a general comment, said that resolution L.2 fell outside the scope of the work of the Human Rights Council, noting that it was not clear why the use of drones was singled out among the means to fight terrorism. It was not desirable for the Council to continue discussion on that issue. However, France supported general discussions on the fight against terrorism.

Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, said the draft addressed a very important issue, as armed drones had caused losses of civilian lives in many countries. Perpetrators of these heinous crimes, whose victims were referred to as “collateral damage”, should be held accountable.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it would call for a vote and vote against this resolution. The examination of specific weapon systems was not a task for which the Human Rights Council possessed the right expertise. The resolution was largely duplicative of other work by the Council on human rights and counterterrorism, which the United States supported. The United States stressed its commitment to ensure that its counterterrorism activities, as well as its use of remotely piloted aircrafts, respected international humanitarian law.

Republic of Korea, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it attached great importance to international efforts to counter terrorism. The resolution addressed the potential human rights impact of the use of armed drones, but went beyond the mandate of the Council as it focused on specific weapon systems. The Republic of Korea would vote against this resolution.

Action on Resolution on the Right of Persons with Disabilities to Live Independently and be Included in the Community on an Equal Basis with Others

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.5) on the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community on an equal basis with others, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council calls upon States that are not yet party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully enjoy the right to living independently and being included in the community on an equal basis with others; calls upon States parties to guarantee equal recognition before the law of persons with disabilities and ensure that they have the opportunity to exercise control over their lives on an equal basis with others; prevent isolation or segregation from the community of persons with disabilities, and in that regard take further measures towards their deinstitutionalization; provide persons with disabilities with access to a range of support services that are responsive to their individual choices, wishes and needs, including for their deinstitutionalization; and calls upon States to ensure that all international cooperation is inclusive of persons with disabilities and does not contribute to creating new barriers for them.

New Zealand, introducing draft resolution L.5 on the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community on an equal basis with others, stated that the resolution enjoyed the support of 76 co-sponsors. It welcomed the study by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community on an equal basis, and called on States parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to take effective measures to facilitate that right. The resolution also set the theme for the next annual interactive debate: Article 11, the rights of persons with disabilities in situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies. New Zealand introduced an oral revision to operative paragraph 16 of the text, and introduced oral amendments to the text.

Mexico, also introducing draft resolution L.5 on the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community on an equal basis with others, said that persons with disabilities represented 16 per cent of the world’s population, and were often deliberately excluded and discriminated against. The draft resolution aimed to provide full integration of persons with disabilities in the community. It also responded to the choices and needs of these persons and took into account the task force of the Human Rights Council. Mexico encouraged Council members to vote in favour of the resolution.

Brazil, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said in a joint statement that the action of reducing the number of resolutions should be an exercise of all countries. It was underscored that resolution L.5 used specific language on the rights of persons with disabilities. A decision to initiate a resolution was a prerogative of United Nations Members States and they could submit texts whenever they deemed appropriate. Thematic resolutions should not prejudge the agenda.

Action on Resolution on the Negative Impact of the Non-Reparation of Funds of Illicit Origin to the Countries of Origin on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, and the Importance of Improving International Cooperation

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.8) on the negative impact of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin to the countries of origin on the enjoyment of human rights, and the importance of improving international cooperation, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, 2 against and 12 abstentions, as orally revised, the Council requests the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights to continue to consider the impact of illicit financial flows on the enjoyment of human rights as part of the mandate; also requests the Independent Expert to convene an experts meeting on the issue of the negative impact of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin to the countries of origin on the enjoyment of human rights, to include the outcome of that meeting in a study that he will present to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-first session; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all necessary assistance and financial resources, to allow the Independent Expert to carry out the mandate set out in the present resolution; requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all Member States and different forums dealing with the issue of the repatriation of funds of illicit origin within the United Nations system for consideration.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (33): Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (2): Japan, and United States of America.

Abstentions (12): Albania, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and United Kingdom.


Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, introduced resolution L.8, which highlighted the central role of the United Nations in the fight against corruption. Domestic legal systems were crucial in the fight against transfers of illegal origin and to ensure the repatriation of those funds to the country of origin. The resolution also called attention to the cases of corruption which involved transfers that could represent a significant proportion of a State’s funds. Such transfers could threaten the stability and security of societies, economic development and democratic values. There was an urgent need to react in order to return illicit funds to the country of origin.

Latvia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before vote on behalf of the European Union, said that it regretted that its recommendations had not been implemented. The resolution covered issues that exceeded the mandate of the Human Rights Council. The effective elimination of corruption was a matter of criminal law. Human rights should not have precedence in this issue. It was for States parties of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the Working Group on asset recovery to deal with this issue. For this reason it was not for the Human Rights Council to make recommendations that were in the scope of States. The General Assembly was a more appropriate forum for dealing with this issue. The European Union did not support the resolution and would abstain.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, noted that it would vote against resolution L.8 as it did not reflect principles of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The Council used problematic and outdated concepts in the resolution, and the report that served as the basis for the resolution had not covered the complex aspects of asset recovery. The United States was working to depoliticize the recovery of assets. In addition, the resolution ignored other valuable work that had been done in the area.

Mexico, in explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it would vote in favour of resolution L.8 as it was part of the Council’s mandate. The impact of the repatriation of illicit funds had a serious impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. However, there was concern about the overlap of the resolution with the work of other relevant fora. The text should have included more measures for non-discrimination with respect to economic, social and cultural rights. The resolution should also be complementary with the work of other relevant agencies.

Action on Resolution on the Independent Expert on the Enjoyment of Human Rights of Persons with Albinism

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.10) on an Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights of persons with albinism, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to appoint, for a period of three years, an Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights of persons with albinism. The mandate of the Independent Expert includes to identify, exchange and promote good practices relating to the realization of the rights of persons with albinism and their participation as equal members of society; to gather, receive and exchange information and communications on violations of the rights of persons with albinism; to raise awareness on the rights of persons with albinism and combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful traditional practices and beliefs that hinder their enjoyment of human rights and participation in society on an equal basis with others; to promote awareness of their positive contributions and to inform persons with albinism about their rights; to report to the Human Rights Council, starting from its thirty-first session, and to the General Assembly. The Council also requests the Independent Expert to integrate a gender perspective throughout the work of the mandate.

Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group and introducing draft resolution L.10, said that this was an issue dealt with by the Human Rights Council in past sessions. It proposed the establishment of a Special Procedure in the form of an Independent Expert who would promote the rights of and report on the obstacles facing persons with albinism in all regions, and ensure the provision of advisory and technical assistance, and international cooperation to promote national efforts for the effective enjoyment of human rights of persons with albinism. The aim was to combat negative practices, beliefs and discrimination against persons with albinism. The Independent Expert would report to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly. This resolution had been subject to wide consultations. The African Group requested its adoption by consensus.

Brazil, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed its concern about the situation of persons with albinism and about serious violations of their rights. It supported the establishment of a new mandate on their situation, as well the strengthening of that mandate through cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on Persons with Disabilities.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, welcomed resolution L.10, which would protect the rights of persons with albinism and would punish those who violated their rights. It encouraged the future mandate holder to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on Persons with Disabilities, noting that Human Rights Council should evaluate the effectiveness of the mandate and decide whether it would be continued.

Action on Resolution on the Renewal of the Mandate of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group to Consider the Possibility of Elaborating an International Regulatory Framework on the Regulation, Monitoring and OverSight of the Activities of Private Military and Security Companies

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.11/Rev.1) on the renewal of the mandate of the open-ended intergovernmental working group to consider the possibility of elaborating an international regulatory framework on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of private military and security companies, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 13 against and 2 abstentions, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the open-ended intergovernmental working group for a further period of two and a half years in order for it to undertake and fulfil the mandate; decides that the working group shall invite experts and all relevant stakeholders to participate in its work, including members of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the right of peoples to self-determination; requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the open-ended intergovernmental working group with all the financial and human resources necessary for the fulfilment of its mandate.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (13): Albania, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (2): Kazakhstan, and United States of America.


Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group introducing draft resolution L.11/Rev.1, said the resolution was procedural, with the aim to view the impact on human rights of activities of private military and security companies. The question of accountability under international humanitarian law remained a priority. The principles underlying of the intergovernmental open-ended working group implied transparency and exclusivity. The African Group had always been transparent in its approach and believed it was completely unacceptable to face challenges every time the mandate of the group was to be renewed. It was the collective responsibility of the Council to focus on the fate of victims of private military and security companies, including on their extraterritorial activities. The African Group hoped the adoption would be by consensus.

Latvia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said that it had engaged in the discussion on a regulatory framework for the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of private military and security companies. The European Union was expecting a procedural resolution and was surprised that the resolution proposed extension of the mandate of the open-ended intergovernmental groups for another two years, with a considerable change in the mandate. One of the motivations to change the operative paragraph one was to bring back the resolution on the use of mercenaries, which had already been sufficiently discussed. The European Union could not support this resolution and its Member States would vote no.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said it would abstain from voting on the draft resolution, which lacked clarity. Paragraph 77, including the issues in subparagraph E, provided the basis for cooperation. The United States continued to urge home states, territorial states, and contracting states to make step by step progress on activities of private military and security companies. What was needed now was better implementation of existing international law and not new international legislation. The discussions of the open ended intergovernmental working group would enhance these standards and implementations.

Action on the Resolution on the Effects of Foreign Debt and Other Related International Financial Obligations of States on the Full Enjoyment of All Human Rights, in Particular Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.14) on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 14 against and one abstention, the Council expresses its concern that the level of implementation and the reduction of overall debt stock under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative are still low, and that the Initiative is not intended to offer a comprehensive solution to the long-term debt burden; and condemns the activities of vulture funds for the direct negative effect that the debt repayment to those funds, under predatory conditions, has on the capacity of Governments to fulfil their human rights obligations, particularly economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. The Council requests the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt to report to the General Assembly on the issue of the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights; requests the Secretary-General to provide the Independent Expert with all necessary assistance required to carry out his functions; and requests the Independent Expert to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-first session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (14): Albania, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

Abstentions (1): Mexico.


Cuba, introducing resolution L.14, noted that economic and financial crises had great impact on all the countries, but especially on developing countries, where the servicing of foreign debt further aggravated the crisis. The resolution thus addressed the impact of vulture funds on the capacity of Governments to comply with their human rights obligations, including the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. It was regrettable that there were still countries which did not acknowledge the link between foreign debt and development. It was not correct to claim that the Council was not an appropriate forum to discuss the problem of debt, because the latter influenced the protection and promotion of human rights.

Argentina, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed its firm support of the draft. The issue was a priority for Argentina. It thanked Cuba for having included references to vulture funds and invited all States to participate in debt restructuring processes. Challenges of foreign debt on the enjoyment of human rights were many. It requested other States to support the draft resolution.

Latvia, speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Council was not the correct forum for the discussion of government resources for the realization of human rights. The issue of unsustainable foreign debt was better discussed in the General Assembly. This resolution fell outside of the Human Rights Council’s mandate. Therefore, the European Union did not support the resolution and the European Union Member States to the Council would vote against it.

Mexico, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it would abstain on the vote on resolution L.17 because economic, social and cultural rights should not be conditioned by the economic situation of States. It underscored the primary obligation of States to promote and protect economic, social and cultural rights. It expressed concern about the negative impact of vulture funds on Governments’ ability to comply with their human rights obligations. However, that subject had already been addressed in other fora.

Action on Resolution on the Renewal of the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.15) on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, adopted without a vote, decides to extend, for a period of three years, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights. In the resolution the Council reaffirms that, while the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms; and calls upon all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the discharge of the mandate.

Cuba, introducing draft resolution L.15, on the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, said that cultural diversity was crucial for respect of all human rights. It constituted a main element of wealth and strength. The text had been submitted in broad consultation with many delegations. Cuba hoped the draft resolution would be adopted without a vote.

Latvia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said it attached great importance of the work of the Special Rapporteur on cultural rights, and supported the renewal of the mandate for another three years. However, it reiterated they it did not agree with some recommendations on copy rights, involving certain exceptions to copy rights.

Japan, speaking in a general comment, noted that the copy rights system rested on a delicate balance of the moral rights of the creator and the users of the work. The question of access should be considered comprehensively and through discussion with relevant stakeholders. Those issues should be entrusted to the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the Special Rapporteur should consider them in light of cultural rights in a careful manner.

United States, speaking in a general comment, said it continued to support cultural diversity, pluralism and dialogue. It was concerned, however, that the concept of diversity in human rights could be misused. The concept should not justify human rights abuses. Efforts to promote it should not infringe on the individual enjoyment of human rights. The protection of moral and material interests in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was important. This included intellectual property rights. The United States did not agree with most of the recent reports of the current Independent Expert, including those on intellectual property rights.

Action on Resolution on the Right to Food

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.16) on the right to food, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to continue to monitor the evolution of the world food crisis and to keep the Human Rights Council informed of the impact of the crisis on the enjoyment of the right to food and to alert it to possible further actions in this regard. The Council considers it intolerable that more than one third of the children who die every year before the age of five die from hunger-related illness, and that about 805 million people worldwide suffer from chronic hunger, including as one of the effects derived from the global food crisis, while the planet could produce enough food to feed everyone around the world. The Council expresses deep concern that the number of hungry people in the world remains unacceptably high and the vast majority of hungry people live in developing countries. The Council also calls for the early conclusion to and a successful, development-oriented outcome of the Doha Round of trade negotiations of the World Trade Organization as a contribution to creating international conditions permitting the full realization of the right to food; and urges States to give adequate priority in their development strategies and expenditures to the realization of the right to food.

Cuba, introducing draft resolution L.16 on the right to food, said that the draft followed on how the Council had dealt with this issue on the past, and referred to the need to develop legal sources and awareness raising campaigns on the right to food. Cuba had done its best to include the concerns of all during the negotiations, and hoped that this resolution would receive broad support.

Latvia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, welcomed Cuba’s constructive approach and efforts to adopt national strategies to combat malnutrition. The importance of providing adequate nutrition for children under the age of five was underlined and the European Union would work towards the achievement of that goal. However, it was disappointing that the preamble of the resolution contained a reference to an oversimplified linkage between the right to food and industrialization.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the focus on global food and nutrition security was essential in a world free from malnutrition. The United States reiterated its commitment for a variety of solutions to end hunger and malnutrition. It was concerned, however, by the references in the resolution to a so-called “World Food Crisis” which did not exist. It was the lack of governing institutions and systems that contributed to food insecurity in some parts of the world. However, the resolution did not mention these. States were responsible for implementing human rights obligations of their citizens. They did not have extraterritorial obligations for the right to food. The text contained many references to obligations on the part of donor nations; however, it did not include obligations of receiving nations. More balance was needed in this respect. Trade negotiations references in this resolution were inappropriate.

Action on Resolution on Human Rights and the Environment

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.19) on human rights and the environment, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a special rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment for a period of three years; the Council requests the Special Rapporteur, in collaboration with the Office of the High Commissioner: to convene, prior to the thirty-first session of the Human Rights Council, an environmentally friendly expert seminar on the effective implementation of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, challenges thereto and the way forward; to submit to the Human Rights Council, at its thirty-first session, a summary report on the above-mentioned seminar, including any recommendations stemming therefrom; invites States to consider the compilation of good practices contained in the report of the Independent Expert when fulfilling their human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and to include information on action taken in this regard when reporting to the United Nations human rights system.

Costa Rica, introducing draft resolution L.19 on human rights and the environment, said this was a resolution highlighting the links between those two areas from a human rights-based approach. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on this issue was renewed, and the resolution encouraged the sharing of good practices and the development of indicators to identify gaps in promoting a healthy environment. The draft resolution had been orally revised. Costa Rica welcomed the constructive and reconciliatory spirit in which delegations engaged in negotiations.

Morocco, also introducing draft resolution L.19, said a healthy, clean and sustainable environment was crucial for the protection of human rights and vice-versa. Morocco supported the establishment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on this issue, and believed the renewal of this mandate would strengthen the links between human rights and environment efforts, and would contribute to build States capacities in that regard.

India, speaking in general comment on the behalf of a group of countries, thanked the sponsors of the resolution L.19 for the open and constructive discussion. The resolution looked at the extension of the mandate on the environment and human rights. However, the reasons behind it were ambivalent and there was an attempt to create an artificial hierarchy of mandates. While supporting the extension of the special procedure by three years, India noted that the mandate should be carried out in a manner that upheld the right to development.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stated that it continued to agree with other members of the Council that the protection of the environment was very important. At the same time, it remained concerned about the general placing of environmental rights in fora where it did not belong. Furthermore it was concerned about the level of expertise of the Independent Expert on environmental rights, and did not agree with his aspects of work. This resolution was applicable to States only when referring to documents that States were party to. The resolution incurred high costs, and this was a concern. The United States encouraged the Human Rights Council to minimize the costs.

South Africa, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, proposed that in order to avoid time consumption, the mandates of the Independent Expert and Special Rapporteur, should be one. In other words, a standard form was needed. There was no substantial difference in mandates of both Special Procedures. The mandate should address climate change, toxic wastes, and the enjoyment of healthy environment in a consensual matter. South Africa joined the motion that the draft resolution be adopted without a vote.

Action on Resolution on the Question of the Realization in All Countries of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.20) on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon all States to give full effect to economic, social and cultural rights; encourages States to put in place social protection floors as part of comprehensive social protection systems that will contribute to the enjoyment and realization of human rights; and underlines the importance of an effective remedy for violations of economic, social and cultural rights, and in this regard takes note with appreciation of measures taken to facilitate access to complaints procedures and the domestic adjudication of cases, as appropriate, for victims of alleged human rights violations. The Council requests the Secretary-General to continue to prepare and submit to the Human Rights Council an annual report on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights under agenda item 3, with a special focus on a compilation of best practices adopted by States to measure progress in the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, including national indicators to advance the realization of such rights.

Portugal, introducing draft resolution L.20 on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, said the draft resolution called on all States to give full effect of economic, social and cultural rights and encouraged the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its protocols. It contained a special focus on the importance of social protection floors for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights and recognized that social protection policies played a critical role in that regard. Social protection floors contributed to ensuring minimum essential levels of such rights, thus promoting their progressive realization, as well as gender equality and the protection of persons in a situation of vulnerability. The importance of non-discrimination, transparency, participation and accountability was underlined. The text further recognized the importance of giving due consideration to such rights in the post-2015 development agenda.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, joined the consensus of the members of the Council to work constructively in this area and continued to provide for economic, social, and cultural rights. It was concerned, however, about a few key points in the resolution. The references to obligations of States were applicable only if the State was party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The resolution should not try to define economic, social and cultural rights. In joining consensus, the United States did not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law.

South Africa, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that as a co-sponsor of the resolution, it was actively engaged. It referred to operative paragraph 15 which encouraged contribution and cooperation of business enterprises to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. Full reference to other business enterprises was needed. Thus reference to the corporate sector was a better, wider term that could be used. Progressive language was needed to strengthen the obligations to economic, social and cultural rights. South Africa did not agree with comments of States that were not party to the Convention. Part 2 of the International Covenant laid down principles that had to be respected by all States, including those not party to the Covenant.

Action on Resolution on Registration and the Right of Everyone to Recognition Everywhere as a Person before the Law

In a resolution (A/HRC/28/L.23) on birth registration and the right of everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses concern at the fact that, despite ongoing efforts to increase the global rate of birth registration, approximately 230 million children under the age of five worldwide are still not registered; reminds States of their obligation to register births without discrimination of any kind and irrespective of the status of the parents of the child; and urges States to identify and remove physical, administrative, procedural and any other barriers that impede access to birth registration. The Council requests the High Commissioner to identify and actively pursue opportunities to collaborate with the United Nations Statistics Division and other relevant stakeholders, in order to strengthen existing policies and programmes aimed at universal birth registration and vital statistics development, and also requests the High Commissioner to prepare a report on efforts made in this regard, to be submitted to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-third session.

Turkey, introducing draft resolution L.23, said that birth registration served as a precondition for all other rights. The resolution was brought to the attention of the Council for the third time, and the current draft was improved by including a study on good practices. The current draft also reflected discussions with interested delegations and parties. Turkey looked forward to its adoption by consensus.

Mexico, also introducing draft resolution L.23, explained that the reasoning behind the resolution was that birth registration was the best way to ensure the legal personality of persons and that it was the first step towards ensuring basic freedoms. UNICEF estimated that some 30 million children below the age of 5 had never been registered. Persons who were not registered faced limitations to their rights, and could easily fall victim to various forms of violations, such as disappearances. The draft called on the High Commissioner to look into forms of cooperation among various United Nations bodies to work on that issue.

South Africa, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said this resolution raised key issues of relevance and priority. It supported the call by the United Nations on the importance of birth registration, but underlined that the birth registration of non-nationals did not automatically grant citizenship. Within the African continent, it was important to raise collaboration to ensure universal birth registration. South Africa reserved its sovereign right to adopt measures to delimit the practicalities of birth registration.

__________________

For use of the information media; not an official record