Considering Human Rights Council Reports, General Assembly Discusses Way Forward for Promoting Fundamental Legal Protections, Combatting Terrorism Worldwide
Challenges to the international community’s human rights mainstay were debated today as the General Assembly took up the reports of the Human Rights Council’s sessions this year. Hearing from just over two dozen speakers expressing fellow feeling with citizens of Paris, Beirut and Baghdad in the wake of devastating terrorist attacks in those cities, delegates discussed the way forward for advancing human rights around the world for every individual.
Shocked by the terrorist attacks, Joachim Ruecker, President of the Human Rights Council, said that the Council had reaffirmed that the promotion and protection of human rights for all and the rule of law were essential to the fight against terrorism. In April, the 47-member intergovernmental body held a special session in light of attacks, human rights abuses and violations committed by what he called the terrorist group Boko Haram.
The “dark plague of terrorism and extremism” was emerging as a fundamental challenge facing the global community, and had led to unsurmountable negative repercussions on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly the right to life and personal security, said the representative of Egypt. With that in mind, he urged the Council to stand united behind the timely and critical message it conveyed, namely in condemning all acts of terrorism wherever they occurred and by whomever they were perpetrated.
The representative of Nigeria welcomed the support of the Council in his country’s fight against that extremist group. Council resolution S-23/1 adopted on 1 April 2015 had called upon States to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons as well as technical aid to the Multinational Joint Task Force set up to fight Boko Haram, he said.
Noting that his country, too, had experienced the horror of terrorism first-hand, the Russian Federation’s representative was also concerned about migration issues. In the current year the Council addressed a wide range of issues, however, some human rights issues had been noticeably absent from its work. The rights of national minorities, mass statelessness on the European continent, and the repression of the media were among them. The Council was not adequately dealing with racism, xenophobia, Nazism and nationalism.
But just what the limits were for the purview of the Council was of concern to the representative of Iran, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, who said that the Movement was concerned over the continuing and proliferating practice of selectively adopting country-specific resolutions in the Council. That practice exploited human rights for political purposes and breached the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in addressing those issues.
Indeed, the need for the Council’s procedures to comply with the institution-building package, mandate holders’ code of conduct and terms of reference was crucial, said the representative of Sierra Leone, speaking on behalf of the African States. He reiterated strong concern over attempts to impose new concepts such as sexual orientation and gender identity not referenced in international human rights law. The States strongly rejected any attempt to undermine the international human rights system by imposing concepts pertaining to social matters or private individual conduct falling outside the internationally agreed legal framework. Such notions without international agreement, definition or consensus only served to divide the Council and undermine its approach.
The representative of Eritrea, whose country was the subject of a Special Rapporteur and the Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea, said that for the Council to depend on a report presented by one or three individuals that collected information from “faceless and nameless sources” was not only procedurally wrong, but also a travesty of justice.
While countries which had been considered by special mandate holders expressed criticism towards those procedures, those which had been subject to the Universal Periodic Review were unanimously positive to the experience, with Paraguay’s representative noting that the Review allowed nations to observe and be observed.
The representative of the European Union underlined the importance of both Special Procedures’ mandate holders — both thematic and country-specific — and the Review mechanism. Expressing condolences for the victims of terrorism, and asking rhetorically what kind of freedom did the world wish to defend, he said that the violence represented the denial of all human rights and the international community must face and work to combat such violence together.
Also speaking at today’s meeting were the representatives of Gabon, Australia, Liechtenstein, Philippines, Mongolia, Kuwait, Montenegro, Qatar, Kazakhstan, India, Switzerland, Mexico, Hungary, Estonia, Sudan, Argentina, Cuba, Maldives, the United Republic of Tanzania, Belarus and South Africa.
The General Assembly will meet again tomorrow, 17 November at 10 a.m., to take up the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Background
The General Assembly met today to discuss two reports of the Human Rights Council, including a report on the Council’s twenty-eighth session from 2 to 27 March 2015 and its twenty-third special session on 1 April 2015 (document A/70/53) as well as an addendum to that report on its thirtieth session from 14 September to 2 October 2015 (document A/70/53/Add.1.).
Statements
JOACHIM RUECKER, President of the Human Rights Council, said the Council was “shocked” by the terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut, and expressed his sympathy to those affected. As the Council entered its tenth year, the international community should strive for as much consensus as possible, and as much voting as necessary. He then summarized some of the Council’s country-specific decisions that were made in the course of the year, notably on Syria. The Council had also heard reports from the Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea and from the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In April, the Council held a special session in light of the terrorist attacks and human rights abuses and violations committed by “the terrorist group Boko Haram”, he said, adding that the Council had reaffirmed that the promotion and protection of human rights for all and the rule of law were essential to the fight against terrorism.
Having held 17 panel discussions on issues such as universal coercive measures and good governance in public service, the Council had also established two new Special Procedures’ mandates. He recalled that former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan had called those mandates the “crown jewels” of the human rights system, as they were the international community’s eyes and ears, reporting on and monitoring human rights issues throughout the world. Turning to the functionality of the Council, he stressed the need for better cooperation and coordination between the United Nations offices in Geneva and New York, with a view to minimizing duplication, being more resource-efficient, and ultimately jointly strengthening the Organization’s human rights system.
The Universal Periodic Review was nearing the end of its second cycle, and the beginning of its third cycle. While challenges remained, he noted that in comparison to the first cycle, bilateral matters now tended to be less present in the reviews. He welcomed the “self-restraint” exerted by concerned States, which contributed to preserving the constructive, consensual and non-politicized nature of the Universal Periodic Review. An issue which transcended the review was the protection of the role of civil society in the Council’s work. Civil society was not just “nice to have” but it was at the core of the Council’s work and of human rights. He had been apprised of alleged and verified cases of intimidations, threats and reprisals against individuals from civil society organizations, national human rights institutions, and even Special Procedures’ mandate holders. He reiterated that the participation of civil society should be preserved and individuals protected from any type of intimidation.
He asked the Assembly to include as a theme during a high-level segment of its seventy-first session, the full and effective implementation of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which, among other things, called for universal ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination The Council faced “significant challenges” in terms of resources, as it continued to adopt resolutions and decisions with significant resource implications, but without the regular budget keeping pace with that growth. Noting that his own Presidency was coming to an end and that from January 2016, the office would be held by the Asian Group, he looked to the future, saying that the Council had proved in the past that it was able to devise new formats and modalities in addressing human rights issues, and noting that the body had held an interactive enhanced dialogue on the human rights of migrants in June.
GHOLAMHOSSEIN DEHGHANI (Iran), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed sympathy for and condemned the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad, which proved that terrorism and violent extremism were global threats requiring global cooperation. The Movement reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and should be supported by the international community without distinction between developed and developing countries. Human rights should also be addressed with objectivity and respect for all United Nations Charter principles, including, among others, respect for national sovereignty and the right to self-determination of all peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination. The Movement stressed the need to preserve positive developments achieved since the establishment of the Council, including its institution-building package, and to ensure that human rights were not used for political purposes, avoiding the problems that plagued the former Human Rights Commission.
He emphasized the Council’s role as a subsidiary body of the Assembly considering human rights situations in all countries in the Universal Periodic Review context. In that regard, the Movement was concerned over the continuing and proliferating practice of selectively adopting country-specific resolutions in that Council. That practice exploited human rights for political purposes and breached the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in addressing those issues. It undermined cooperation, the principle which effectively promoted and protected universally recognized human rights for all. The Movement called on all member States of the Council to promote international cooperation and constructive dialogue, preventing double standards and political manipulation which had discredited the Commission.
VANDI CHIDI MINAH (Sierra Leone), speaking on behalf of the Group of African States, welcomed the adoption of the Council President’s statement 29/1 on enhancing its efficiency and the follow-up decision 30/115. The Group reiterated that the Council’s Bureau should be guided by and work within paragraph 114 of the Council’s institution-building package, which clarified that the Bureau’s role remain restricted to organizational and procedural matters. Expressing concern about attempts to depart from that package or initiating a de facto review, he said the recurrence of those attempts could have negative consequences for the credibility and future security of the Council. The continued impasse in the intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development and the recurrent resistance against pursuing the process of fully realizing that right was also of great concern. Within the Council, the Group had maintained leadership on issues including the elimination of female genital mutilation, the impact of toxic wastes on human rights, and others. It had been the most supportive of item 10 of the Council’s programme of work on technical cooperation and capacity-building in that field. African States constituted two thirds of beneficiaries of that item, which should not be abused for other objectives such as monitoring.
The Universal Periodic Review remained the most distinct mechanism of universal application assisting States in fulfilling their human rights obligations, he said. It was critical that the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance for the Review’s implementation be properly resourced. The Group also emphasized the need for the Council’s procedures to comply with the institution-building package, mandate holders’ code of conduct and terms of reference. He reiterated strong concern over attempts to impose new concepts such as sexual orientation and gender identity not referenced in international human rights law. The Group strongly rejected any attempt to undermine the international human rights system by imposing concepts pertaining to social matters or private individual conduct falling outside the internationally agreed legal framework. Such notions without international agreement, definition or consensus could only serve to divide the Council and undermine its approach. Further, people were not “inherently vulnerable” but some found themselves in vulnerable situations. The Group strongly deplored all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stigmatization and related problems, and called on States to refrain from prioritizing the rights of certain individuals.
IOANNIS VRAILAS, a representative of the European Union, expressed condolences and sorrow over the recent attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad, and said they were attacks against everyone. What kind of freedom did the world wish to defend, and what crimes had the victims of the attacks committed? he asked. The violence represented the denial of all human rights, and the international community must face and work to combat such violence together. Turning to the Council’s work, he reiterated the Union’s strong support for the body, which had strengthened the ability of the United Nations to help ensure all persons enjoyed their human rights and violations thereof were disclosed. Noting the importance of the Council’s credibility and effectiveness, he stressed the Union’s commitment to ensure its ability to address gross and systematic human rights violations and abuses, respond promptly to human rights emergencies, and improve international human rights standards and their implementation worldwide. In that context, he strongly opposed any attempts to undermine the Council’s institutional position within the United Nations system and noted the importance of its independence.
He said the Council’s response to the crisis in Syria and violations committed by the Assad regime was critically important. He also welcomed the Council’s commitment to provide technical aid and capacity-building to the Governments of Côte d'Ivoire, Iraq, Libya and Mali, as well as its continued support to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Republic of Guinea, South Sudan and Ukraine. Congratulating the recently elected new Council members, he encouraged them to pay careful attention to the human rights records and commitments of States throughout their membership. In that regard, he particularly underlined the importance of collaboration with Special Procedures’ mandate holders - both thematic and country-specific – and the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Before concluding, he reiterated the Union’s strongest condemnation of any acts of reprisals and intimidation of civil society representatives cooperating with United Nations mechanisms.
EVGENY T. ZAGAYNOV (Russian Federation) said the tragedy in Paris was an example of barbaric terrorism that threatened civilization. Similar acts had taken place in Lebanon and Iraq in the past few days. The Russian Federation had experienced that horror first-hand. The international community should decisively and cohesively combat that heinous phenomenon that threatened the right to life. In the current year the Council addressed a wide range of issues, however some human rights issues had been noticeably absent from its work. The rights of national minorities, mass statelessness on the European continent, and the repression of the media were among them. Social, economic and cultural rights, the right to development and the strengthening of international legal guarantees of non-interference in private and family life should receive greater attention. The Council was not adequately dealing with racism, xenophobia, Nazism and nationalism. A serious concern was the Council’s growing politization and the polarization of its members’ interests. Some countries’ practice of acting as mentors to others was not making the work of the Council constructive. Human rights lay within the purview of States with the international community providing consultative services and capacity-building only upon request.
BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA (Gabon), aligning with the African Group, said that respect for human rights was a precondition for any development. He encouraged the Council to continue to deal with situations which threated the exercise of human rights, such as discrimination in all its forms. His country had keenly followed the Council’s attention to issues such as family, private life, migration, sustainable development, and climate change, and further encouraged the Council to strengthen its actions on various issues. The idea of increasing human rights staff on the ground was welcomed. The protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms had to take into account non-politicization.
CAITLIN WILSON (Australia) commended the Council for its important work to promote and protect all human rights. Having actively engaged with the Council since its establishment in 2006, her country had been reviewed by 104 Member States as part of its Universal Periodic Review. Australia took the Universal Periodic Review seriously, and would use the next three months to genuinely consider each recommendation. Australia had announced its candidacy for a seat on the Council for the period 2018-2020, the first time her country had sought a seat on the body. Continuing to focus on five pillars in human rights, among them advancing the rights of women and girls and promoting good governance as well as promoting and protecting freedom of expression, she noted that her country engaged in Council resolutions on the rights of indigenous peoples. Australia was also a strong advocate for the abolition of the death penalty, long having maintained that there was no evidence of its deterrence value.
CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said that the Council could look back at a very busy and largely successful year. The Council’s decision to support national accountability efforts in Sri Lanka for crimes committed during the country’s civil war not only sent a strong signal to survivors, but also illustrated the Council’s role in promoting accountability for gross and systemic human rights violations. While national judiciaries primarily held responsibility to prosecute, the proposed international hybrid mechanism – under national leadership – required a strong commitment by the Sri Lankan Government to bring justice to those victims. The Council also appointed its first-ever Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy – one of the largest human rights challenges of the century. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights required that the Assembly extend such protection without discrimination based on nationality or citizenship, and also that States respect those rights on their own territories, abroad or in cyberspace. Finally, the Council continued to make progress on the question of the death penalty, following the most recent statement of the Secretary-General. The Special Rapporteur had found no categorical evidence of any method of execution currently in use that complied with that prohibition in all cases, and the Council should follow that logic in making similar statements in the future. Turning to resolution 24/24 on ending reprisals against individuals or groups cooperating with the United Nations, he urged its implementation, as threats to human rights defenders worldwide had increased and the Organization had a moral duty to help protect “these courageous individuals”.
LOURDES YPARRAGUIRRE (Philippines) said the country, which traditionally sponsored Council initiatives that protected vulnerable groups, was a main co-sponsor of the resolution on human rights and climate change, which called for a study on the human rights-based approach to climate change. Regarding the Universal Periodic Review regional consultations, the Philippines had presented the resolution on the contribution of parliaments to the Council’s work, which called for a panel discussion to assess further enhancing that contribution during the Council’s thirty-second session. The Philippines firmly believed the Universal Periodic Review effected change on the ground, as it encouraged all Member States to improve the human rights situations pursuant to their national priorities and international commitments. Within the United Nations, support was needed for international capacity-building to enable countries to better implement their accepted recommendations.
SUKHBOLD SUKHEE (Mongolia) stressed the importance of the Universal Periodic Review process, which provided all Member States with an equal opportunity to present their respective human rights situations, share lessons learned and discuss challenges in the implementation of human rights obligations. Mongolia’s second national report under the Review had been constructively discussed and positively received by the Review’s Working Group, in particular, the country’s efforts to implement the recommendations from its first assessment. The Mongolian Government had accepted 150 of the Working Group’s 164 proposals, and it had been working on an action plan toward their application. On the Council’s Special Procedures, Mongolia had received eight visits from the mandate holders, including the Special Rapporteurs on the rights to food and education, as well as those overseeing mandates against torture and extreme poverty. Human rights were essential to achieving sustainable development, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development offered the country critical opportunities to further advance the realization of those rights for all people, without discrimination. The Government remained fully committed to contribute to Council activities during its membership in the body through voluntary pledges and commitments made under resolution 60/251 and beyond.
HAYAH ALNASRALLAH (Kuwait), condemning the terrorist attacks in France, Lebanon, and Iraq, called on the international community to combat terrorism in all its forms. Kuwait had collaborated with the Council and was working to eliminate human trafficking and all forms of violence against women. Since the second Universal Periodic Review, which the country had undergone in January 2015, it had implemented 178 of the Review’s 278 recommendations. Kuwait had provided humanitarian assistance to numerous States and hosted three international conferences on the humanitarian situation in Syria. The grave suffering of the Syrian people needed to be alleviated. Israel’s brutal practices violated the human rights of the Palestinian people and they should be stopped.
OSAMA A. MAHMOUD (Egypt), referring to the recent attacks in France, Egypt and Lebanon, said that the “dark plague of terrorism and extremism” was emerging as a fundamental challenge facing the global community, and had led to unsurmountable negative repercussions on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly the right to life and personal security. With that in mind, he urged the Council to stand united behind the timely and critical message it conveyed, namely in condemning all acts of terrorism wherever they occurred and by whomever they were perpetrated.
Noting that next year would mark the Council’s tenth anniversary, he stressed that its mandate could only be implemented by applying the principles of non-politicization, non-selectivity, objectivity, universality, international cooperation and within the context of genuine intergovernmental dialogue. He therefore expressed support for strengthening the Council’s effectiveness, and underlined the importance of it addressing all human rights, including the right to development, in a fair and equitable manner. Moreover, he encouraged efforts to further elaborate the normative content of the right to development, and welcomed initiatives by the Council to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Concluding, he expressed concern over attempts by some States to impose new controversial notions and concepts which had no basis in international human rights law, therefore undermining the universality of human rights and the credibility of the international human rights system.
NEBOJŠA KALUĐEROVIĆ (Montenegro), aligning with the European Union, said the Assembly must remain aware that any initiative that would lead to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Human Rights Council having a subsidiary role to one another would be counterproductive to the independence of the OHCHR. The Assembly must adopt a more sensitive approach to hearing the recommendations of both bodies and deciding on the financial means needed for their complementary and independent duties. The Universal Periodic Review remained an important incentive for improving the human rights situation for the countries under assessment. With the third cycle slated to begin, the results of the Review’s implementation phase would determine its efficiency and ultimate credibility, as well as demonstrate States’ engagement in the promotion and protection of human rights. Montenegro had recently submitted its mid-term report on its application of recommendations received during the second cycle and was in the process of developing a national mechanism for follow-up on recommendations from the Reviews as well as from Special Procedures and treaty bodies. The success of the Council depended on States’ own readiness to “use this international forum to bring to justice the perpetrators of human rights violations, to hold Governments accountable to their citizens, and to undertake a proactive approach in building the culture of human rights as the only acceptable standard”.
ALYA A.S. AL-THANI (Qatar) said her country supported the Council’s role in upholding human rights around the world and commended its impartiality. Others should not seek to undermine the body’s efforts. Given the Council’s growing mandates in promoting and consolidating human rights, it needed more resources. The family unit was an important building block of society and Qatar looked forward to the Council’s report on its recently passed resolution in that regard. Qatar had undertaken comprehensive reform in promoting the rights of women and children and improving labour conditions for expatriates working in the country. The country had received the Special Rapporteur on Migration and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in 2014. Qatar was committee to collaborating constructively on human rights with relevant organizations.
AYO OTEPOLA (Nigeria) said his country attached great importance to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As one of the three pillars of the United Nations, human rights was closely tied to peace and security and development. Without human rights there would be neither peace and security nor development, he stressed, highlighting the Council’s key role in that regard. Turning to the atrocities committed by Boko Haram, he welcomed the support of the Council in his country’s fight against the terrorist group. Council resolution S-23/1 adopted on 1 April 2015 had called upon States to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons as well as technical aid to the Multinational Joint Task Force set up to fight Boko Haram. In addressing human rights violations, the Universal Periodic Review had proven quite successful and it attracted a large percentage of participation by States.
FEDERICO A. GONZÁLEZ FRANCO (Paraguay) welcomed the report on the work done by the Council, adding that the body was of fundamental importance in the world at large. Its role as the principal intergovernmental body for the promotion and protection of human rights could not be overemphasized. When needed, the international community should provide resources for the Council to work appropriately and effectively. The Universal Periodic Review allowed nations to observe and be observed. Paraguay and Brazil had tabled a resolution on strengthening national processes for follow-up on human rights recommendations, he said, stressing the need to strengthen cooperation between OHCHR and Governments to improve States’ ability in that regard. Paraguay also had co-sponsored the text regarding the Council’s contribution on human rights matters to the Assembly’s 2016 special session on drugs. The Council should inspire other United Nations bodies. All individuals had to have their dignity and rights protected, and Paraguay advocated that the Council continue carrying out its function, also calling on States to continue their cooperation with the Council.
DINARA IZANOVA (Kazakhstan) said the current work of the Council was being carried out against the back-drop of escalating armed conflict, terrorist attacks and grave humanitarian crises. As a result, migration and the fight against terrorism were priorities on its agenda. Kazakhstan called for more dialogue between the Council and the Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) to increase the efficiency of both bodies and avoid a duplication of their functions. The Council’s work should be based on dialogue and constructive collaboration. In the light of the recently adopted 2030 Agenda, the Council should focus on the right to development. Kazakhstan continued to actively cooperate with the Council. Over the past two years the country had received visits by four Special Rapporteurs. In the same period, it presented reports to four United Nations treaty bodies, underwent a second Universal Period Review, and ratified the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
BHAGWANT S. BISHNOI (India) said the Council had “an even more important role to play” in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. It had to ensure that all human rights be treated in a fair and equal manner, and bear in mind the significance of national and regional particularities as well as various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds. Given its dependence on voluntary funding, the Council needed to further rationalize and prioritize its work so as to make the most efficient use of limited resources. Inherent ambiguities, including in funding, geographical diversity of staffing and strategic planning, were hindering OHCHR’s optimal performance. The High Commissioner was making efforts to streamline the work of the Office, but it was important for Member States to agree on a mechanism to enhance its transparency and accountability. The Council should respect the right of a State to organize and manage its human rights affairs. It must not fall into the trap of selective country spotlighting, and it must function in a non-selective, non-politicized, non-confrontational and transparent manner.
OLIVIER M. ZEHNDER (Switzerland) said the Council had adapted to new human rights challenges by extending the scope of its activities at the thematic level and in terms of individual country situations. The wider field activity clearly proved its success. However, to some extent, the Council had become a victim of its own accomplishments; having diversified so extensively, it had reached the limit of its capacities. Strengthening the United Nations human rights pillar remained essential to ensuring respect for human rights everywhere in the world. More closely addressing human rights-related issues within all the Organization’s bodies reinforced human rights. From that perspective, his delegation welcomed the Human Rights Council’s stronger ties with both the Third Committee and the Security Council, especially through the participation of the Human Rights Council President in several events and meetings at the Secretariat in New York, not just at the body’s office in Geneva. Turning to civil society actors, he said that close cooperation between those “key partners” and the Human Rights Council ensured respect for human rights in the world. The ever-increasing number of incidents of intimidation and reprisals against civil society members, especially those which cooperated with United Nations mechanisms, was a deep concern. Switzerland called on all Member States to ensure the protection of these individuals.
RICARDO ALDAY GONZÁLEZ (Mexico) welcomed the work done by the Council at its twenty-eighth through thirtieth sessions, and its twenty-third special session. The report of the Council was a unique opportunity to review the functioning of the universal system of human rights. An analysis of the report would have a positive impact on the situation of human rights throughout the world. Reflection on the Council had to focus on continuing improvement. Mexico insisted on a qualitative rather than quantitative approach. The work of the Council should be optimized by adjusting the timetable of the Council’s process of considering applications of those aspiring to be mandate-holders. A constructive approach was a fundamental pillar. Ten years after the Council’s establishment, it was time to implement certain measures so the international community might see effective results on the ground for all individuals and all persons everywhere.
ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary), associating with the European Union, reiterated support for the Council and underscored the importance of civil society in its work. The reprisals against those who cooperated with the United Nations on human rights were of great concern. Hungary valued the Universal Period Review as a unique and important peer review mechanism and its second Review would take place in the spring of 2016. Special Procedures also played a crucial role in the promotion of human rights and the country had invited all special mandate holders to visit. The goal of the 2030 Agenda was universal and indivisible human rights for all, and the principles of equality and non-discrimination would ensure achievement of that goal. The Council could contribute to the effective implementation of the Agenda.
SVEN JÜRGENSON (Estonia) supported the regular exchange of information and the efforts made to coordinate the work of the Council and Assembly’s Third Committee. He hoped that the Council and the Committee would support and complement each other’s work, not duplicate it. During Estonia’s term in the Council, the delegation had focused on ensuring and protecting democracy, rule of law, good governance, and fighting impunity in all forms. In addition, Estonia strongly supported the promotion and protection of the rights of women, children and indigenous peoples, advancement of gender equality, and the elimination of gender-based violence. Recognizing the role of civil society in the field of human rights, he underlined the need to respect its independence and freedom. Freedom of expression and opinion were the cornerstones of democracy and open society.
GIRMA ASMEROM (Eritrea) said that the core tenets of human rights values were best promoted when the Council upheld the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity. With that in mind, the Council’s report contained several country-specific mandates, which his delegation rejected. The directives of the Special Rapporteur and the Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea remained a politically motivated act that did not reflect the realities on the ground. In the report, developmental programmes such as afforestation, dam building and other infrastructure activities, implemented with the full participation of the people, were presented as “slave labour”, when they, in fact, had resulted from the mobilization of domestic sources for sustainable development. The Special Rapporteur and Commission must be terminated, with the reallocation of funds to OHCHR to enhance cooperation with Member States.
Despite the occupation of its sovereign territory and the “politically motivated, unjust sanctions” imposed on Eritrea, the country remained fully committed and engaged in advancing the hard-fought social, economic and political aspirations of its people, he said. For the Council to depend on a report presented by one or three individuals that collected information from “faceless and nameless sources” was not only procedurally wrong, but also a travesty of justice. The Council should allow neither its own political manipulation, nor its misuse by any country, big or small, rich or poor. The Council must also give an opportunity for any accused party to defend itself. Not long ago, the United Nations witnessed the termination of the Human Rights Commission after some of its members used it as a political tool of intimidation against developing countries. Eritrea appealed to the President of the Council to exercise maximum vigilance to maintain the body’s integrity.
OMER D.F. MOHAMED (Sudan), associating with the African States and the Non-Aligned Movement, stressed its commitment to human rights and attached particular importance to their promotion, especially through regional and African instruments. His Government had updated its laws in compliance with the regional mechanism – as covered in statements before the Third Committee – and had participated in the first cycle of the Review with the opportunity to present additional implementations during the second cycle at the twenty-fifth session of the Review’s Working Group in May 2016. The Council, however, needed to remain non-selective and must address all regions without discrimination, since all faced challenges at different levels. The Review mechanism remained the most constructive framework for ensuring universality, without introducing any resolutions not agreed upon internationally. Sudan disassociated from any resolution introduced in the Council in the past two years with a specific agenda, especially regarding sexual orientation and sexual identity, as the role of the family remained paramount in the country. The Council must adhere to the code of conduct and comply with relevant provisions of its institution-building package and with treaty bodies; it should not expand into the legislative sphere, which remained the right of the Member States.
FERNANDO A. MARANI (Argentina) said his country was a “resolute defender” of the work of the Council and of human rights around the world. Argentina would no longer be a member of the Council after December, and it had been an honour to participate in that body’s work. After Argentina’s return to democracy, and especially after 2003, human rights protection had become a State policy. As a Council member, Argentina had submitted the “right to truth” as a separate right. Also, since 2009, it had promoted initiatives regarding forensics and human rights, including a guide on the use of forensic genetics with regards to human rights, prepared with the International Committee of the Red Cross. A key focus of Argentina’s foreign policy was the protection of those who had been forcibly disappeared and those involved in the fight to end the scourge of involuntary disappearances.
OSCAR LEÓN GONZÁLEZ (Cuba), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the Council must confront the manipulation of the Commission, the body it replaced, and should not, once again, do away with principles agreed upon internationally to uphold the agenda of a few. Cuba regretted that the Council’s report showed the use of punitive approaches and selective treatment in human rights. The Review process remained the sole universal mechanism for assessing human rights in all countries. The defence of such principles through the Review process should not be just a commitment, but a daily practice if the United Nations wanted the Council to achieve in its goal on an international level, and advocate for a fair economic and political order, while replacing the old Commission, which was unfair and exclusionary. Cuba, as a recipient of biased sanctions, would work with a group of likeminded States to bring back solidarity to the Organization — an essential element in all issues affecting the planet. The country advocated that all procedures within the Council should adhere to similar tenets, and the body should promote the right to self-determination, the establishment of an equitable democratic order and respect for diversity and cultural rights.
ZEENA MOHAMED DIDI (Maldives) said her country had been a member of the Council since 2011, expressing concern that OHCHR’s work required ever-increasing resources and asserted that it was necessary for it to be financed primarily through the United Nations regular budget. Human rights continued to be allocated only a fraction of the priority and budget given to other areas of the Organization’s work. Special mandate holders at the Council fulfilled an important role and must maintain their independence and impartiality, acting in a manner that reflected the integrity of their positions. Engaging with the Council was every Member State’s responsibility. Though the Universal Periodic Review remained universal, many small island developing States were not represented in Geneva, and many delegations did not take an interest in participating. For the Review to be truly universal and transparent, more — if not equal — attention should be given to evaluating and reviewing the human rights situations of all countries to ensure that vulnerable populations were protected everywhere and to reaffirming that all lives mattered.
TUVAKO MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of African States, noted that the Council’s work had grown exponentially to cover many areas of human rights. But the expansion presented some challenges, especially on controversial and divisive issues. Turning the focus to albinism, as an example, he said those affected with the disorder faced human rights violations despite his Government’s categorical condemnation of those “abhorrent acts”, as well as stringent punitive measures against perpetrators. Several African countries had also introduced in the Third Committee a resolution seeking to address the developmental challenges faced by those with albinism. A recent event – a documentary showing on albinism, co-sponsored by the Canadian Mission, OHCHR and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) – however, had highlighted the lack of transparency and accountability in human rights, as his country’s Mission was neither invited to co-sponsor the event nor consulted on the validity of the film’s assertions. United Nations agencies and offices should not take or be seen taking positions that were prejudicial or even favourable to some Member States to the detriment of others, particularly when those parties had not engaged in a serious review of the claims put forth. While civil society organizations should be supported, they must demonstrate objectivity and fairness – accountability was not a responsibility of Governments alone.
LARYSA BELSKAYA (Belarus), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, welcomed the Council’s focus on social and economic rights, combating human trafficking, the situation of the elderly, among other issues. However, she noted that the Council was becoming a platform for “settling political scores” and the setting of standards not agreed upon internationally. She called for an end to such practices, and welcomed the creation of a Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights to bring about change in that area. The Council’s attention to the situation in Belarus showed its inability to react to global issues such as migration, while instead focusing attention to such issues as sexual orientation. She expressed concern at attempts by the Council to review Belarus’s methods and called on that body to adhere to its mandate. Her country’s commitment to promoting human rights was unwavering. Equal attention must be paid to all types of human rights, and to preventing the politicizing of human rights topics, which contravened the principles on which the Council was created.
EPHRAIM L. MMINELE (South Africa) said that his country’s Constitution clearly stated that it was a sovereign democracy founded on the basis of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity was therefore explicitly prohibited in the Constitution. The Council had an important role in fighting racism, xenophobia and related intolerances through its adoption of ambitious and practical resolutions aimed at fully implementing the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. He added that effective accountability mechanisms must address the corporate sector as well as States, because multinationals were key drivers of globalization and their operational activities should not escape scrutiny under international human rights law. The current slanted and biased approach could not be tolerated. In that regard, the first session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with respect to human rights was held in July. South Africa reiterated its concern at the continued undermining and disregard for the provisions of Assembly resolution 68/144 on the deferral of action on Council resolution 24/24, and in that context, could not support the recently elaborated San José Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals.