人权理事会结束第三十二届会议（部分翻译）

人权理事会

2016年7月8日

人权理事会今天下午确认了五位任务负责人的任命并通过会议报告，随后结束了于7月1日暂停的第三十二届会议。

理事会主席崔庆林（Choi Kyong-Lim）表示，法律事务办事处认为，主席任命五位任务负责人的决定保持不变，除非需要依据议事规则第123条规则重新考虑这一决定。

俄罗斯联邦代表一系列意见相同的国家发言，它对主席选择认可任务负责人候选人名单的方式表示了深切的遗憾和担忧。这组国家认为需要重新考虑这一任命。协商同意认可特别程序任务负责人候选人的做法应该得到保持。

纳米比亚和巴拉圭也就任务负责人的任命主题发表讲话。

以下观察国在一般性意见中发言：阿塞拜疆、马耳他、塞拉利昂、埃及、日本、乌拉圭、尼加拉瓜、美国、捷克共和国、新西兰、澳大利亚、加拿大和伊朗。

理事会副主席兼报告员伯特兰•德•克鲁姆布鲁格（Bertrand De Crombrugghe）呈交了已通过但尚待核准的第三十二届会议报告草案。

代表一系列国家的爱尔兰、日本和国际人权服务社（International Service for Human Rights）在一般性总结发言中讲话。

理事会主席在总结发言中表示，必须消除所有针对与联合国合作的个人和组织的恐吓或报复。

人权理事会第三十三届会议将在2016年9月13日至30日举行。

General Comments by Observer States

Azerbaijan made a statement with regard to the resolution on cooperation and assistance to Ukraine in the field of human rights. Worry was expressed over civilian casualties, and the growing number of internally displaced persons and missing persons in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. Azerbaijan supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine and was of the view that the settlement of the present conflict in eastern Ukraine was only possible through dialogue that involved all segments of the Ukrainian society.

Malta, referring to L.7.Rev.1 on discrimination against women, and L.28.Rev.1 on accelerating efforts to eliminate violence against women, stated that there were problematic references to emergency contraception. Malta's principled position was that the right to life extended to an unborn child from the moment of conception. Malta reaffirmed its position that rejected any recommendation that the right to abortion be considered as a legitimate part of reproductive health rights and services.

Sierra Leone, speaking about resolution L31.Rev.1 on the elimination of female genital mutilation, said that Sierra Leona would continue to actively enforce the ban on under-18 initiation of girls, while engaging its public on the future of cultural practices such as female genital cutting. Sierra Leone also applauded the work being undertaken to address the human rights of persons living with albinism.

Egypt said that it was happy that L.35 on the protection of the family had been adopted for the third time, with a constantly growing majority. Egypt was alarmed over the adoption of the deeply flawed L.2.Rev.1, which aimed to establish new rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. The Council did not have the legislative power to create new rights, stressed Egypt. Egypt would not recognize nor would it cooperate with the Independent Expert emanating from L.2.Rev.1.

Japan welcomed the appointment of the five mandate holders, including the one on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Given that there was no international agreement on the right to peace, the adoption of L.18 at the Council, without a consensus reached at the Working Group, was regrettable. Japan hoped that this would not set a precedent.

Uruguay, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, regretted that an amendment had not been accepted to L.35 on the protection of the family. There were different sorts of family, all of which were protected under international legal norms. Human rights and fundamental freedoms of all family members ought to be protected. A monolithic concept of the family should be avoided, and the group of countries expressed opposition to the text adopted.

Nicaragua welcomed the adoption of the resolution on the right to peace. Work needed to be based on peace, dialogue and consensus. Nicaragua was convinced that peace was a keystone for the promotion of human rights and development. Good faith dialogues needed to be promoted.

United States congratulated the Council on the creation of an Independent Expert to protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. It was regrettable that some regressive amendments had been adopted. The United States regretted that one delegation had kept the Council hostage over one mandate holder. The United States was pleased that there had been 101 co-sponsors for the resolution on women and nationality. The United States also welcomed the fact that the mandates on Eritrea and Belarus had been extended.

Czech Republic strongly supported the establishment of the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, under L.2.Rev.1. The Czech Republic opposed the paragraphs voted in the resolution through amendments L.73, L.74, L.75, L.76, L.77, L.78 and L.79, as they were in contradiction with the draft that the Czech Republic had co-sponsored. The new mandate should galvanize the collective action at all levels.

New Zealand supported the creation of the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. New Zealand did not support the amendments to the text adopted last week. Violence and discrimination in all their forms against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people had to be condemned wherever they occurred.

Australia said that it had co-sponsored L.2.Rev.1 on sexual orientation and gender identity, noting that violence and discrimination were always unacceptable. L.29 on civil society space was welcomed, as civil society played an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights. On L.7/Rev.1, Australia was disappointed that language on comprehensive sexuality education had been weakened during negotiations. Regarding the resolution on protection of the family, L.35, it was regretted that the diversity of the family was not reflected.

Canada thanked all States on the consensus adoption of the resolution on eliminating violence against women. Canada was disappointed that several amendments had passed contrary to the spirit of L.2.Rev.1. Women’s participation in the peace process was critical for achieving a just peace in Syria. Gender was an internationally agreed-upon term and should not be ignored. Canada was dismayed at the efforts to limit the participation of civil society in the Council.

Iran, speaking on L.2.Rev.1, reiterated its commitment to pursue a variety of approaches to protect human rights against violence and discrimination, but any approach should address basic social or religious norms and values of communities. Iran would not cooperate with the mandate holder which this resolution had brought about. On L.28, Iran underscored that the term “intimate partner” was neither defined nor recognized in international human rights law.

Comment

Russian Federation, speaking on behalf of the like-minded group of countries, drew attention to the input that the President of the Council had made to the 2016 High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Russia reminded the President of the letter sent to him by the Ambassador of Egypt, on behalf of 17 States. The President of the Council had presented a substantive input on thematic issues, which did not necessarily represent the positions of the Member States of the Council. No instruction had been given by the Council in that regard. The Russian Federation was concerned over the opaque way the incident had been handled. The input submitted by the President could thus not be endorsed by the like-minded group of countries, and efforts would be made to avoid similar occurrences in the future.

Adoption of the Draft Report of the Session

BERTRAND DE CROMBRUGGHE, Vice-President and Rapporteur of the Council, introduced the draft report of the thirty-second session. After the session, the report would be finalized by the Secretariat. The final text of the resolutions and decisions adopted would be available in due course on the Human Rights Council website.

Mr. de Crombrugghe reminded that interactive dialogues had been held with 18 Special Procedure mandate holders and two Commissions of Inquiry. The Council had also adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of 14 countries and appointed five Special Procedure mandate holders.

The Council then adopted the report ad referendum.

General Concluding Remarks

Ireland, speaking on behalf of a cross-regional group of countries, referred to the way the Council could contribute to preventing human rights violations and respond to emergencies. With the Human Rights Up Front action plan in place and modern media, the international community was better aware than ever of the emerging pattern of violations. The group welcomed the new Swiss-led initiative, which aimed at encouraging States, within existing institutional frameworks, to strengthen interaction between the Council and other bodies. The Council could consider whether there was a call for action by the Secretary-General, the Security Council or other United Nations organ. States could decide in an objective manner when country situations should be addressed in an urgent manner.

International Service for Human Rights, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, said that the Human Rights Council had made history by mandating an Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity. The resolution on civil society space provided critical guidance to States on steps necessary to enable civil society to contribute to human rights and other goals. Dismay was expressed that many situations of serious concern were still lacking attention in the Council’s chamber, including in China, Egypt and Bahrain.

Japan thanked the President for his wise guidance of the session.

Concluding Remarks

CHOI KYONG-LIM, President of the Council, expressed concern that a number of civil society members who had planned to travel to Geneva to attend the current session had been denied exit from their country and placed under a travel ban. That situation was wholly unacceptable. All acts of intimidation or reprisal against individuals and groups cooperating with the United Nations had to end.

In the context of its tenth anniversary, a Human Rights Council Retreat would take place on 1 and 2 September. It would be an informal exchange between Permanent Representatives of the Member States of the Council, coordinators of regional and political groups, and other stakeholders, all with a view of improving cooperation and dialogue, and tackling some of the key questions facing the Human Rights Council today.
__________

1Joint statement on behalf of: International Service for Human Rights, CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Human Rights Watch, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International Lesbian and Gay Association, and International Commission of Jurists.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record

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