HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Human Rights Council during its midday meeting today held an interactive dialogue with Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, followed by a general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms.

Mr. Heinz, in his introductory remarks, said that the Advisory Committee had continued to give priority to requests arising from Council resolutions in accordance with its mandate, and had finalized its study on terrorist hostage-taking. The past year had been particularly challenging for the Committee which, for the first time since its establishment, was faced with the serious concern of lack of new mandates. In anticipation of possible difficulties, the Committee had intensified its efforts to identify proposals for further research within the scope of the work set out by the Council. A practice that had emerged was for the Committee to actively engage with the sponsors of Council resolutions requesting it to prepare a research-based report, which had been extremely useful.

During the interactive dialogue with the Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, delegations highlighted the importance of addressing terrorist hostage-taking and preventing ransoms from becoming a source of funding for terrorism. Some speakers expressed concern that some of the proposals in the report did not fall within the mandate of the Council. The Advisory Committee should not elaborate theoretical concepts that expanded on international human rights law but should be confined to making practical recommendations. Speakers also welcomed progress made in studies regarding the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations, and appreciated the attention paid to the gender-perspective and realizing the rights of persons with disabilities

The United States, Maldives, Gabon speaking on behalf of the African Group, European Union, Djibouti, Morocco, Venezuela, and Algeria spoke during the interactive dialogue.

The Council also held a general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms, during which speakers highlighted the value attached to the work of special procedures, which were a vital part of the United Nations human rights machinery and the work of the Council. Speakers also stressed the importance of special procedures’ independence and working methods. Some delegations noted the need to improve cooperation with mandate holders and urged States to issue open-ended invitations. Others reiterated concerns about the practice of accusing States and applying pressure and reaffirmed the need for grounding the work of special procedures on the universally agreed principles of mutual respect and dialogue. Speakers echoed the report of the Secretary-General, expressing concerns about reprisals, threats, and acts of intimidation against actors working with the United Nations and its bodies in the area of human rights. Non-governmental organizations drew the Council’s attention to specific cases and appealed to the Council to go beyond reporting, to address impunity, and to take concrete measures to ensure an enabling environment for human rights defenders to carry out their work.

Speaking in the general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms were Lithuania speaking on behalf the European Union, Latvia speaking on behalf of 60 countries, Ireland, Switzerland, China and South Africa.

The Council of Europe took the floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: International Service for Human Rights, Eastern Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, Helios Life Association, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, International Commission of Jurists, Marij Foundation for Peace and Development, World Barua Organization, Liberation, Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, Khaim Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture, Südwind Entwicklungspolitik, United Schools International, Centre for Environmental and Management Studies, Indian Council of South America, European Union of Public Relations, International Buddhist Relief Organization, International Association of Schools of Social Work, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, World Environment and Resource Council, International Association for Democracy in Africa and France Libertes – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand also took the floor.

Argentina and Malaysia spoke in right of reply.

The Human Rights Council will meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. to consider the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review of Turkmenistan, Burkina Faso and Cape Verde.

Documentation

The Council has before it a note by the Secretariat concerning the reports of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on its tenth and eleventh sessions (A/HRC/24/48).

The Council has before it the report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on human rights and issues related to terrorist hostage-taking (A/HRC/24/47).

Presentation of Report by the Chairperson of Human Rights Council Advisory Committee

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, said that the Advisory Committee had continued to prioritize requests arising from Council resolutions, in accordance with its mandate. In Resolution 18/10 the Council asked the Advisory Committee to prepare a study on terrorist hostage-taking, for the purposes of promoting awareness and understanding, paying particular attention to its impact on human rights and the role of regional and international cooperation in that field. The Committee had invited contributions from all interested stakeholders. However, in spite of the Committee’s efforts, identifying good practice on the issue of the human rights of hostages and the impact of terrorist hostage-taking on local communities proved to be a difficult task. The resulting study was not a general study on human rights aspects of terrorist hostage-taking, but rather provided an overview of the salient features of the problem and focused on the specific aspects identified by the Council in Resolution 18/10.

Mr. Heinz listed other studies completed during the reporting period: on the promotion of the human rights of the urban poor, on rural women and the right to food, and on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind. The past year had been particularly challenging for the Committee which, for the first time since its establishment, was faced with the serious concern of lack of new mandates. In anticipation of possible difficulties, it had intensified its efforts to identify proposals for further research within the scope of the work set out by the Council. In March and June the Council had built on proposals, and entrusted the Committee with three new mandates: on human rights in post-conflict and post-disaster situations, on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, and on the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights. In addition, two further initiatives were announced at the Council’s organizational meeting, one of which originated from the Committee’s proposals.

Mr. Heinz was pleased to note that the Committee had made considerable progress on the three mandates, and said two emerging proposals were a new study on the possibility of a universal court of human rights, and a new study on citizen safety and human rights. The Committee had also considered ways to improve its functioning and procedural efficiency; and was now actively engaging with the sponsors of Council resolutions requesting research-based reports from the Committee, which had been an extremely useful practice. The Council had sent out questionnaires with respect to its three new mandates to seek wider contributions.

Interactive Dialogue with the Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee

United States expressed concerns that the Advisory Committee had exceeded its mandate and was expensive and duplicative. The Advisory Committee should not elaborate theoretical concepts that expanded on international human rights law but should be confined to making practical recommendations. In designing future mandates for the Committee the Council should be guided by the following: the Committee should not duplicate work underway in other forums; it should not go beyond the Council’s mandate; and it should take advantage of its technical expertise.

Maldives said the Advisory Committee should not duplicate work done by other bodies or go beyond its mandate and the competence of the Human Rights Council. The Advisory Committee was expected to provide action-oriented proposals to the Council. Maldives welcomed progress made in studies regarding the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations, and appreciated the attention paid to the gender perspective and realizing the rights of persons with disabilities.

Gabon, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that terrorist hostage-taking was more topical than ever. Ransom payments were an important funding source for terrorism; it allowed terrorists to recruit, reinforce their operational capacity, and carry out additional attacks. The international community should make greater efforts to fight that form of funding. The Algiers Memorandum, to which the study referred, had made it possible to engage in the drafting of a document containing good practices and constituted an important point of reference.

European Union said it shared concerns about the growth of terrorist kidnapping but noted that some of the proposals in the report did not fall within the mandate of the Council, which was namely the promotion and protection of human rights. The European Union had followed the discussions of the Advisory Committee and welcomed the initiative to engage with coordinators of regional groups. The European Union welcomed the fact that recent initiatives related to the Committee had a clear human rights focus.

Djibouti commended the Advisory Committee for its work and report, which provided significant information and would help the Council to protect human rights. Djibouti welcomed the Committee’s consideration of the issue of hostage-taking, and said it was cooperating with the international community to tackle the problem.

Morocco referred to the Advisory Committee’s study on the negative impact of corruption on the full enjoyment of human rights. Corruption was a scourge that affected people all around the world and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights was now an internationally recognized fact. Morocco said that the mandates of other human rights bodies and United Nations specialized agencies should be taken into account when considering issues.

Venezuela said that it had followed with interest the debates of the Advisory Committee in the study of relevant themes, as requested by the Council, such as the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations. The study on the strengthening of international cooperation in the field of human rights was also relevant. Venezuela looked with interest at the topic of citizens’ safety and human rights; it was satisfied with the work carried out by the Advisory Committee and recognized the value of its studies.

Algeria said that there was no doubt that the danger of terrorism and hostage-taking persisted and had an impact on several countries. The act of paying ransoms fed terrorism and had a negative impact on the rights of the hostages. The international community had to make joint efforts to face the threat by all means, and at local, national, regional and international levels. Awareness-raising was particularly important in the context of payment of ransoms.

Concluding Remarks by the Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, addressed the critical remarks directed to the Advisory Committee, namely that it had strayed beyond its mandate. This was not Mr. Heinz’s view. Each mandate was given to the Committee by the Human Rights Council so therefore the scope of the mandates was in the Council’s hands. The same defence was mounted on the question of duplication. Furthermore, numerous topics to which the Advisory Committee had turned its attention related to an existing international instrument. On certain topics for which an international instrument was desired, it was up to States to advance those mechanisms. The Advisory Committee had not started to develop subsidiary committees or country-specific investigations, for example, and indeed there was a slate of institution-building rules that stated what it could and could not do. There was very little room for the Advisory Committee to overstep its mandate.

Documentation

The Council has before it the Communications report of Special Procedures (A/HRC/24/21).

General Debate on Subsidiary Bodies of the Human Rights Council

Lithuania, speaking on behalf the European Union, said that the European Union highly valued the work of the special procedures and their role in advancing the human rights agenda; significant improvements between States and mandate holders was needed. Special procedures’ independence and working methods were essential for them to carry out their mandate. The second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review provided a valuable opportunity to follow-up on recommendations and the European Union encouraged all States to fully cooperate with this mechanism.

Latvia, speaking on behalf of 60 countries, raised the issue of cooperation with special procedures. In response to the twentieth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration, several States had undertaken a voluntary commitment to issue open-ended invitations to all mandate holders, demonstrating a tangible contribution to cooperation with the special procedures and the treaty body system. The countries encouraged all States that had not done so to issue an open invitation and to honour this commitment once made, as well as to respect the work of mandate holders to allow them to discharge their duties.

Ireland was acutely aware of the challenges faced by the treaty body system and the need for these to be addressed, regarding both the way they functioned and resources. The intergovernmental process offered an opportunity to strengthen the treaty body system and Ireland welcomed the support of the High Commissioner to this process. Special procedures were a vital part of the United Nations human rights machinery and the work of the Council. The Universal Periodic Review was a valuable opportunity to exchange views and improve human rights situations and Ireland hoped that the second cycle would see 100 per cent participation.

Switzerland shared the concern of the Secretary-General on the threat of reprisals to actors working with the United Nations and its bodies such as this Council. The Council must condemn publicly any form of intimidation directed at those wishing to work with it. Civil society groups and non-governmental organizations must also be protected, as must human rights defenders. States had a duty to prevent acts of intimidation and bring the perpetrators of attacks on human rights defenders to justice.

China said that the international community faced challenges on the issue of hostage taking and the work of the Human Rights Council and its bodies contributed greatly to an understanding of it. Meanwhile, China supported the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council if they were on the universally agreed principles of mutual respect and dialogue. However, the practice of accusing States and applying pressure on them should be abandoned.

South Africa said in the context of the upcoming World Conference on Indigenous Peoples that, while debate in the Council in the last meeting was welcomed, the timing of the conference was not good because it clashed with high-level meetings taking place in New York at the same time. South Africa was therefore concerned that this vital event would not benefit from either the attention it deserved or effective levels of participation.

Council of Europe said that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance was the body of the Council of Europe entrusted with combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance. The delegation referred to the most recent General Policy Recommendation on combating racism and racial discrimination in employment, which was all the more relevant in times of economic crisis and increase in the rates of unemployment, and which covered various aspects of employment. The recommendation was addressed to Governments who were responsible for establishing an effective legal framework.

International Service for Human Rights said despite the right to access and communicate with human rights bodies, human rights defenders continued to face obstacles, including intimidation and reprisals. It was time for the Council and Member States to take concrete steps to protect human rights defenders and to go beyond reporting. States should create an enabling environment at the national level for their work.

Eastern Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project said that much more needed to be done to ensure that human rights defenders were secure. The appointment of a United Nations-wide focal point was essential to help mainstream existing efforts and liaise with counterparts in the human rights system. The Project expressed concern about the lack of follow-up of cases in the eastern Horn of Africa. Such crimes could not be allowed to slip out of the agenda and continuous monitoring was necessary.

Helios Life Association said, looking back on the 50 years of the United Nations human rights mechanisms, that the record of abuse meted on human rights defenders was shameful. Civilisation was not civilised. The right to love and be love was often denied. A human rights mechanism needed to be developed to educate the world on a rights-based approach to life.

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative drew attention to the climate of fear and repression in Sri Lanka, a recent prominent example being the false denunciation by Government ministers in the media of the United Nations High Commissioner as a Liberation Tigers of Tamil.

International Commission of Jurists highlighted in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch the case of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni in Venezuela who was jailed after she freed a suspect after his detention had been declared arbitrary by the United Nations Working Group. They called on Venezuela to withdraw charges against Judge Afiuni for the legitimate exercise of her professional functions.

Marij Foundation for Peace and Development was extremely concerned about the violations of the Muslim minority in Myanmar. The situation had worsened since the implementation of legislation depriving Muslims from carrying out commercial activities, owning real state and participating in politics. The Foundation thanked the High Commissioner and the President of the Council for their concern and appealed to the Council to send a mission to investigate violations in Myanmar.

World Barua Organization drew attention to the situation of minority indigenous people of northeast India who were constantly threatened with extinction. The World Barua Organization appealed on the Council to call on India to grant recognition to the existing traditional institutions in northeast India and to make the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People a workable document.

Liberation noted the vulnerability of indigenous communities in India. District councils had failed to safeguard the tribes and injustice could only promote disunity and discord. Traditional indigenous institutions had been in place since immemorial time and provided for the protection of culture and rights. Liberation called on the Council to call on India to review its Constitution so that the rights of indigenous peoples were respected and protected.

Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy said that tribal people in India were marginalized and it was extremely difficult to monitor the level of their poverty. They were excluded from decision-making and a target of corruption. There was practically no research on the effect of corruption on the indigenous people of India, and the Council was urged to act.

Khaim Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture highlighted the 60 cases of medics who had been imprisoned and tortured for offering medical assistance after public disturbances in Bahrain in 2011. They and other human rights defenders had to be freed immediately and other violations in Bahrain had to be stopped.

Südwind Entwicklungspolitik said that States did not always answer or enter into a communication with the special procedures of the Human Rights Council and this was a cause for regret. The case of two hunger strikers in Iran, which drew the attention of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran, was but one example.

United Schools International said that indigenous peoples required different rights to develop their identity and culture, given their special relationship with land and water. The world was experiencing a rapid decline in cultural diversity and the eradication of indigenous peoples and their way of life. Social marginalization and discrimination placed indigenous peoples at risk of a wide range of violations. Legislative measures recognizing their right to ownership of land needed to be implemented.

Centre for Environmental and Management Studies said that the drive to develop minerals and fossil fuels coupled with the fact that much of what remained of these resources was situated on the lands of indigenous peoples resulted in increasing and ever more widespread effects on indigenous peoples’ lives. The Centre appealed to the High Commissioner to ensure that indigenous peoples were helped, protected and provided with their rights.

Indian Council of South America expressed concern about the situation of indigenous peoples in the Amazon. Having participated in the elaboration of International Labor Organization Convention 169 and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Indian Council of South America noted that grave violations to their rights remained.

European Union of Public Relations said that the model of the extractive industries in which profits were controlled by indigenous people should be extended. The Human Rights Council should support this model as a means to the promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights.

International Buddhist Relief Organization said indigenous people in India were under threat of extinction due to a number of factors such as illegal immigration. Action was required by the Government of India and the indigenous authorities should not be ignored or underfunded.

International Association of Schools of Social Work said the right to self-determination was a pre-requisite of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, and there should be more than one preparatory meeting for it. Many indigenous peoples were being excluded from the planned World Conference.

Commission to Study the Organization of Peace said that there did not seem to be one definition of indigenous people but that indigenous people had historically belonged to a particular region or country before its colonization or transformation into a nation state. Human rights problems were related to the larger issues of historically entrenched injustice and social injustice. Indigenous societies were predominantly subsistence based.
World Environment and Resource Council said that after taking more than 20 years to draft and agree on, the Council had adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which emphasised the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs.

International Association for Democracy in Africa said that all peoples who derived their identity, culture, tradition, faith and language from a territory must be deemed to be people indigenous to that territory. The territory of Gilgit Baltistan, a part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, was occupied in 1947 and local people had been denied participation in political and economic spheres.

France Libertes – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand said that the militarization of indigenous communities, including the Mapuche in Chile, was worrying. The resolution of land conflicts was crucial. The Chilean Government should establish a communication channel with indigenous representatives.

Right of Reply

Argentina, speaking in a right of reply, said that a public policy had been implemented to establish a dialogue with the indigenous peoples. An administrative body had been created in this regard and it worked together with indigenous organizations. The rights of indigenous peoples to receive education and to preserve their identity were enshrined in the Constitution. The law on media and audiovisual communications recognized that indigenous communities were public entities. Regulations existed with regard to the lands of the indigenous peoples. Mr. Anaya had visited the country and recommended that it update the relevant laws. The Government had submitted a set of regulations to Parliament, which set forth a consultation process for all measures that could impact indigenous peoples’ habitat.

Malaysia, speaking in a right of reply, said that most of the issues raised had been dealt with by the Malaysian delegation’s intervention already but it wished to express regret that certain baseless accusations had been made against state leaders in Sarawak and elsewhere. These leaders were themselves representatives of indigenous people. The Government of Malaysia exerted every effort to raise the living standards of its indigenous people. Malaysia believed that civil society had an important role to play in maintaining an accurate flow of information.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC13/111E