ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTS ON REPORT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, ENDORSES APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON RIGHT TO FOOD, HOUSING

Press Release
ECOSOC/5891

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ACTS ON REPORT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, ENDORSES APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON RIGHT TO FOOD, HOUSING

Also Endorses Appointment of Expert On Effects of Structural Adjustment Policies on Human Rights

The Economic and Social Council this morning acted on four draft decisions and one draft resolution contained in the excerpt of the report of the Commission on Human Rights (document E/2000/L.5), including those concerning the appointment of two new special rapporteurs -- on the right to food and the right to housing -- a Secretary-General’s special representative to pursue greater protection of human rights defenders, as well as an expert on the effect of structural adjustment policies on human rights.

During the Commission’s fifty-sixth session, which was held in Geneva from 20 March to 28 April 2000, the Commission adopted 87 resolutions, 13 decisions and four Chairman’s statements. Created in 1946 by the Economic and Social Council, the Commission is the United Nations principal human rights organ. It carries out studies, prepares recommendations and elaborates draft international instruments on human rights. It also looks into allegations of human rights violations.

The Council this morning, adopting without a vote a draft resolution on the procedure for dealing with communications concerning human rights, decided that the Working Group on Communications would meet annually for two weeks, immediately following the annual session of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. It would bring to the attention of the Working Group on Situations any particular situations that appear to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Meeting annually for one week prior to the annual session of the Commission on Human Rights, the Working Group on Situations would then examine the recommendations of the Working Group on Communications and determine whether a particular situation should be referred to the Commission. All actions envisaged in the implementation of the text would remain confidential until the Commission decided to make recommendations to the Council.

Adopting, also without a vote, a draft decision on the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve those rights, the Council endorsed the Commission's decision to appoint, for a period of three years, a special rapporteur focusing on aspects related to the right to adequate housing.

Economic and Social Council - 2 - Press Release ECOSOC/5891 10th Meeting (AM) 16 June 2000

A draft decision on the right to food was adopted by a vote of 39 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 1 abstention (Czech Republic). By its terms, the Council endorsed the Commission's decision to appoint a special rapporteur with the mandate to focus on the right to food for a period of three years. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of the United States said that his country fully subscribed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated that everyone had the right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services. Nonetheless, he could not support the draft decision. The problem concerned General Comment 12, which was released last May by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Comment purported to set forth the authoritative definition of the right to food. Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/10, which established the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, both welcomed and affirmed that Comment.

He went on to say that the Comment contained many assertions his Government could not support. It also took an approach quite different from the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant. It stated that there was a violation of that right if a State did not provide food to all and also allowed a remedy against the State to the individuals believing their right had been denied. Therefore, he could not support either Comment 12, or the creation of a special rapporteur whose mandate would be based on it.

In adopting by a vote of 29 in favour to 2 against (Cuba, Syria), with 11 abstentions, a draft decision on human right defenders, the Council endorsed the Commission's decision to request the Secretary-General to appoint, for a period of three years, a special representative who would report on the situation of human rights defenders in all parts of the world (Annex II).

The Special Representative would seek, receive, examine and respond to information on the situation and the rights of anyone, acting individually or in association with others, to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Special Representative would also establish cooperation and conduct dialogue with governments and other interested actors on the effective implementation of the Declaration and recommend effective strategies to better protect human rights defenders.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Cuba said that her delegation had many concerns in connection with the draft. There was no consensus definition of the term “human rights defenders”. Sometimes, it was applied to groups, often supported by outside governments, who were acting to bring down legitimately constituted governments. For that reason, her delegation could not recognize the establishment of a mechanism supporting such people. The protection of human rights should be carried out within domestic laws of States.

The implementation of the Declaration should also be fully consistent with the United Nations Charter, respecting territorial integrity and sovereignty of States, she said. Under the draft, governments did not seem to be primary defenders of human rights. That did not mean that Cuba would ignore the importance of individuals fighting for human rights. It was necessary to use existing bodies and mechanisms, and duplication of mandates should be avoided.

The representative of China said that his delegation would abstain in the vote. His Government supported promotion and protection of human rights in accordance with relevant human rights laws. His country also supported the existing mechanisms to resolve problems in the field of human rights. The establishment of a new mechanism would be redundant, for its mandate had been covered by the existing machinery, and it was not in line with the efforts to rationalize international efforts.

The representative of Syria said that his delegation wanted reference to be made to the duty of non-governmental to be non-selective and objective in communicating violations. He also recalled his country's reservations concerning the adoption of the Declaration on the promotion or protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was necessary to adopt a non-biased and objective attitude in that respect. As far as the right of individuals to contact international organizations was concerned, the issues should be resolved under domestic law. It was also necessary to regulate the distribution of resources mentioned in the Declaration. Respect for the principles of sovereignty and non- intervention in internal affairs should create a good environment for the promotion of human rights. His delegation would vote against the draft.

Speaking after the vote, the representatives of the Sudan, India and the Russian Federation wanted clarification, asking if the whole text had been adopted, or just operative paragraph 3 of the draft. Following explanation by the Acting President of the Council, Gerhard Pfanzelter (Austria), that action had been taken on the whole text, the representative of the Sudan wanted it reflected that his delegation's vote of abstention was correct.

The representative of Viet Nam said that his country was strongly committed to the protection of human rights, but it had abstained due to the fact that the draft did not truly reflect the consensus on the Declaration. He also stressed that duplication should be avoided in international human rights mechanisms.

The representative of Saudi Arabia indicated that his delegation wanted to change its vote from “in favour” to “abstention”, as it appeared it had voted on operative paragraph 3 of the draft.

The Council then adopted a draft decision regarding effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the enjoyment of human rights by 20 votes in favour to 18 against, with 5 abstentions (Belarus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Russian Federation) (Annex V).

By the terms of the text, the Council endorsed the Commission's decision to discontinue the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the effects of foreign debt on the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and of the independent expert on structural policies, and to appoint, for a period of three years, Fantu Cheru as independent expert on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights.

Prior to taking that action, the Council first voted not to approve the text by 18 in favour to 18 against, with 5 abstentions (Belarus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Russian Federation) (Annex III). According to rule 71 of the Rules of Procedure, equally divided votes were regarded as rejection of the draft decision.

However, the representative of Benin said that he had been absent from the room during the vote. Had he been present, he would have voted in favour of the draft decision. The Acting President responded that the statement did not change the vote, but would be reflected in the report. Following consultations with the Legal Counsel, it was announced that the results of the vote must remain the same. However, according to rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure, during the same meeting a recorded vote could not be reconsidered, unless the Council so decided.

The representatives of Pakistan and Cuba requested reconsideration of the decision, saying that the issue had been overwhelmingly adopted in the Commission. Some delegations found it difficult to attend all the meetings going on simultaneously at the United Nations. It would be remarkable if the draft was overturned now. The representatives of Syria and Algeria supported the motion to reconsider the decision and to take action on it immediately.

The representatives of Canada and the United States expressed reservations about such a move, stressing the delegates should set their priorities when deciding which meetings to attend. Every member of the Council should be present during the voting if he cared about the issue.

The representative of Portugal supported the United States' position. She said that the meeting had been scheduled for a long time. It was also in the Journal. All the delegations had an opportunity to express their position. The decision to reconsider the vote should not constitute a precedent for the future.

The motion to reconsider was then approved by a vote of 20 in favour to 16 against, with 7 abstentions (Belarus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Mexico, Norway, Russian Federation) (Annex IV).

On organizational matters, it was decided this morning that for the Council to benefit from the results of a series of regional meetings in preparation for the high-level segment, the reports of those meetings would be translated and circulated as official documents of the Council.

The Economic and Social Council will meet again at a date to be announced.

(annexes follow)

Economic and Social Council Press Release ECOSOC/5891 10th Meeting (AM) 16 June 2000

ANNEX I

Vote on Right to Food

The draft decision on the appointment of a special rapporteur to focus on the right to food (document E/2000/L.5, decision 2) was approved by a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Against: United States.

Abstain: Czech Republic.

Absent: Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lesotho, Mauritius, Morocco, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Human Rights Defenders

The draft decision on the appointment of a special representative on human rights defenders (document E/2000/L.5, decision 3) was approved by a recorded vote of 29 in favour to 2 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Suriname, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela.

Against: Cuba, Syria.

Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Oman, Russian Federation, Sudan, Viet Nam.

Absent: Benin, Bolivia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea- Bissau, Honduras, Lesotho, Mauritius, Morocco, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Expert on Structural Adjustment Policies and Foreign Debt

The draft decision on the appointment of an independent expert on the effects of structural adjustment policies (document E2000/L.5, decision 4) was not adopted, by a recorded vote of 18 in favour to 18 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Against: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Belarus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Russian Federation.

Absent: Benin, Bolivia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lesotho, Mauritius, Morocco, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Motion to Reconsider

The motion to reconsider the draft decision on the appointment of an independent expert on structural adjustment policies (document E/2000/L.5, decision 4) was approved, by a recorded vote of 20 in favour to 16 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Against: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Belarus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Mexico, Norway, Russian Federation.

Absent: Bolivia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lesotho, Mauritius, Morocco, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Reconsideration of Expert on Structural Adjustment Policies

The draft decision in the appointment of an independent expert on structural adjustment policies (document E/2000/L.5, decision 4) was approved, by a recorded vote of 20 in favour to 18 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Against: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Belarus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Russian Federation.

Absent: Bolivia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lesotho, Mauritius, Morocco, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone.

* *** *