HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REVIEWS MANDATES OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES ON FREEDOM OF OPINION, EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC REFORM POLICIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
The Human Rights Council this afternoon conducted its review, rationalization and improvement of mandates process with regards to the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders.
Canada, introducing the review of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said the right to freedom of opinion and expression was at the core of human individuality and dignity. That right was inter-linked and interdependent with the exercise of all human rights and was one of the essential foundations of a free and democratic society. That right included the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through media, regardless of frontiers. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression had been established by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1993/45, to promote full respect for that right. Canada expressed its sincere appreciation for the current mandate holder, Ambeyi Ligabo, for his work and the important contribution he had made to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of opinion and expression worldwide. Canada called for the renewal of the mandate that established global modalities for the mandate holder to address all issues pertinent to his mandate.
Ambeyi, Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said freedom of opinion and expression was, above all, a holistic and cross-cutting right. Throughout the exercise of this mandate one of the central objectives had been to use its fact-finding and monitoring nature as a means to assess the main trends and patterns of violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The main focus of the main patterns of violations had allowed him to not only present pressing issues that needed to be addressed at the international level, but also to disseminate international good practices and put forward concrete recommendations to Member States. Country visits had been one of the most important strategies to guarantee the effectiveness of the mandate.
Speaking in the general debate of the review of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, Egypt, Cuba, the Republic of Korea, India, Switzerland, Norway, Argentina, the United States, and Algeria. The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Human Rights Advocates, Reporters without Borders - International, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Uganda Human Rights Commission in a joint statement with the Senegalese Committee for Human Rights and the National Human Rights Commission of Rwanda, Human Rights First, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, International Service for Human Rights, Nord-Sud XXI, Front Line – The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, in a joint statement with the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) and the World Organization Against Torture.
Cuba, introducing the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, said that through the Millennium Development Goals, States agreed to tackle debt problems and to adopt various measures at the national and international level in that regard. External debt of developing counties continued to grow and to characterize the harsh reality facing these countries. Lukewarm initiatives would not suffice to resolve the problem of external debt and to allow people to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate should be extended for a further period of three years.
Bernards Mudho, the Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and culture rights, said that the Commission on Human Rights had established this mandate in April 2000, against the backdrop of the negative impacts on human rights observed as a result of structural adjustment programmes, particularly during the 1990s. Since then, gradual change was taking place because of the adoption of different approaches such as the emergence of poverty reduction strategies. It had also become more evident that economic reforms and foreign debt now tended to be identified as issues to be addressed within such poverty reduction strategies among other elements such as decentralization, anti-corruption and social safety-nets. The Human Rights Council could consider refocusing the mandate within the same sphere of the impact of international and national economic management on human rights. Moreover, in a suggestion to support the future of this mandate, a possible way forward could be to reformulate the mandate around the broader theme of the effects of national and international public finances on fundamental human rights.
Speaking in the general debate on the review of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and culture rights were Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Bangladesh and Burkina Faso. The non-governmental organization Centrist Democrat International also took the floor.
Norway, introducing the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, said the cause of human rights defenders was to improve the lives and freedom of others. They were essential actors in ensuring that human rights were implemented on the ground. More had to be done to improve the situation of human rights defenders. Governments should support and protect human rights defenders. The work of the Special Representative had been crucial to many defenders. The mandate had also played a significant role in the defence of women human rights defenders as they faced specific risks.
A statement read out on behalf of Hina Jilani, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, said the three words that could best describe the direction of the development of the mandate on the situation of human rights defenders were protection, collaboration and knowledge. The central concern of this mandate was the protection of human rights defenders. The volume of information from defenders, governments and other actors to the mandate had increased over the years, more because of the credibility of the mandate as an effective mechanism for the protection of defenders than because of an increase in the number of attacks against defenders.
Speaking in the general debate on the review of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, the Netherlands, Brazil, the Russian Federation, Canada, Switzerland and the United States. The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Human Rights Advocates, Reporters without Borders - International, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Uganda Human Rights Commission in a joint statement with the Senegalese Committee for Human Rights and the National Human Rights Commission of Rwanda, Human Rights First, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, International Service for Human Rights, Nord-Sud XXI, Front Line – The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, in a joint statement with the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) and the World Organization Against Torture.
When the Council resumes its work at 10 a.m. on Monday, 17 March, it will take up its Complaint Procedure in private for one hour. At 11 a.m., the Council will listen to presentations and hold interactive dialogues with the Special Advisor on prevention of genocide and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan.
Introduction of Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said that Canada had the honour to introduce the assessment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression on behalf of the co-sponsors. The right of everyone to hold opinions without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of their choice, had been enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. That right was also reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which now had 161 States parties. The right to freedom of opinion and expression was at the core of human individuality and dignity. That right was inter-linked and interdependent with the exercise of all human rights and was one of the essential foundations of a free and democratic society. The right included the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek receive and impart information and ideas through media, regardless of frontiers.
The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression had been established by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1993/45, to promote full respect for that right. Since its establishment, the mandate had been continually renewed by consensus. Canada had traditionally led on the mandate on behalf of more than 65 co-sponsors from all regions.
Canada expressed its sincere appreciation for the current mandate holder, Ambeyi Ligabo, for his work and the important contributions he had made to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of opinion and expression worldwide. In carrying out his mandate, the Special Rapporteur had addressed a wide range of issues, including the security and protection of journalists and media professionals; access to information for education on and prevention of HIV/AIDS; freedom of expression and counter-terrorism; and women and freedom of expression. Canada also appreciated the attention paid by the Special Rapporteur to the emerging human rights challenges brought about by the development of Internet-based technologies. Although a long established right, violations of the right to freedom of expression and opinion continued throughout the world, often with impunity. Moreover, new challenges continued to emerge, including the justification of anti-terrorism measures to curb that right, and the emergence of new technologies. Canada, on behalf of the co-sponsors, had therefore presented a draft resolution calling for the renewal of the mandate that established global modalities for the mandate holder to address all issues pertinent to his mandate.
Statement by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, introducing the mandate, noted that the mandate was established by the Commission of Human Rights in 1993 “to gather all relevant information of discrimination against, threats or use of violence and harassment, including persecution and intimidation, directed at persons seeking to exercise or to promote the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. Since its establishment, the mandate had been able to consolidate its central role within the system of Special Procedures and the United Nations human rights machinery. Freedom of opinion and expression was, above all, a holistic and cross-cutting right. Throughout the exercise of this mandate one of the central objectives had been to use its fact-finding and monitoring nature as a means to assess the main trends and patterns of violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur said the main focus of the main patterns of violations had allowed him to not only present pressing issues that needed to be addressed at the international level, but also to disseminate international good practices and put forward concrete recommendations to Member States.
Country visits had been one of the most important strategies to guarantee the effectiveness of the mandate, he added. Since the establishment of the mandate, 22 visits were carried out to countries from all regions. One of the strategies that had been important for the effectiveness of this mandate was cooperation with regional instruments of human rights protection. The cross-regional character of this mandate was further illustrated by the range of issues it addressed, affecting developed and developing countries alike. The digital divide, prevention of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, protection of freedom of expression while countering terrorism, slander and libel legislation and freedom of information laws, for example, were issues that had real relevance in all regions in the world. The mandate on freedom of opinion and expression had also been at the forefront in addressing complex and challenging issues that had emerged before the Council. For the mandate to be effective, it was essential that it did not shy away from addressing these controversial issues, even when consensus was difficult to achieve. Contrasting views, beliefs and opinions lay at the heart of freedom of expression, and of democracy itself.
General Debate on the Review of the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
BILAL HAYEE (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the OIC attached great importance to the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right was believed to be fundamental to the exercise of many other rights. However, it should not be abused to insult other individuals and groups. It was important to maintain balance in the exercise of rights. Various extremist groups had, in recent years, justified their insulting attacks on the basis of this right. The Special Rapporteur should make recommendations to curb this tendency. The reprinting of insulting caricatures once again indicated a trend which, if not curbed immediately, would lead to a greater clash of cultures and civilizations. The Council had to work on all necessary legal measures to deal with these challenges.
EVA TOMIC (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, began by reiterating the importance of the mandate to the European Union. Freedom of opinion and expression belonged to those core human rights, without which other human rights and freedoms could not fully be enjoyed. It was a fundamental and necessary requirement underpinning all democracies. The European Union expressed its sincere gratitude to Mr. Ligabo for his performance during his terms of office, and strongly supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Throughout the years, the Special Rapporteur had rightly persevered in pointing out the persisting and recurring violations of freedom of expression throughout the world, such as the persecution of journalists and media professionals, censorship and persecution based on defamation and libel laws. At the same time, he had succeeded in following new trends and developments in the field. Of note were his activities with regard to Internet governance, and the attention paid to the preventive education on HIV/AIDS.
The Council should not forget that a very substantial part of the activities of the Special Rapporteur was devoted to work in the field: holding an often delicate dialogue with Governments and non-governmental organizations on general as well as individual issues, through country visits or in written form. Individuals, whose rights had been violated, had profited from that. More generally, the European Union was pleased to note that Mr. Ligabo's cross-cutting perception of his mandate concurred with theirs. The European Union was pleased that the mandate had been taken up and performed in its full scope. Through that action, the Special Rapporteur had demonstrated that the mandate offered the necessary framework to address emerging challenges to freedom of opinion and expression.
TANTY EDAURA ABDULLAH (Malaysia) highlighted the imminent and obvious differences of the understanding among States with regard to the acceptable conception on the promotion and protection on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. These differences had unfortunately continued to be deliberated at length by members of the Council despite the fact that the issue was said to have been adequately addressed in current international law. It was necessary to explore all possible means for the Special Rapporteur to accordingly address this issue in conformity with the principles of international law. Malaysia reiterated that one’s right must not trample on others’ rights and dignity and therefore viewed that any question on this issue should be taken into consideration within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
NYNKE WIJMENGA (Netherlands) said that the freedom of expression and opinion was one of the core human rights. The freedom to express one’s self gave people a voice to claim their other rights and provided the means without which other human rights and freedoms could not be fully enjoyed. In this regard, the Netherlands fully supported the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Since 1993, the United Nations Special Rapporteur had gathered relevant and valuable information for the Commission on Human Rights and the Council. He had drawn the attention of the Council to cases of concern in pointing out the persisting and recurring violations of freedom of expression throughout the world, including the persecution of journalists and media professionals. In 2007 alone, 86 journalists and 20 media assistants were killed, 887 were arrested, 1,511 physically attacked or threatened, 67 journalists were kidnapped and 528 media outlets were censored. These violations often led to other human rights violations and such practices had to come to an end.
ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation considered the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to be very important. The Russian Federation was in favour of retaining this mandate. The Special Rapporteur was reminded that when there were issues of the right being used against the rights of others, States had to serve as arbiters, as stated in several international instruments. The Special Rapporteur was called to base himself on the provisions of universal documents and not on isolated approaches which were not internationally recognized instruments. In order to evaluate the level to which the right to freedom could be exercised, the particularity of each culture should be taken into account. The Russian Federation wished that the Special Rapporteur’s upcoming work would be more objective.
AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt) said for the mandate to be renewed, one must bear in mind that the respect of the right to freedom of opinion and expression must not mean trampling on the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Council must not allow the abuse of these rights or the incitement of religious hatred. The Council could not continue its business as usual while religions, civilizations and cultures were being abused. Egypt would not stand still while its religion, civilization and society came under attack. If consensus was to be maintained on this issue, such a consensus must not simply mean business as usual.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) applauded the way in which Mr. Ligabo carried out his mandate. The Cuban Government supported the renewal of his mandate as well as the promotion and protection of freedom of expression. Each of these ideas, promotion and protection, had to be evaluated. In the last few years, the Special Rapporteur had made significant progress on new and emerging issues like the Internet and censorship. Another issue of growing concern was the monopoly of information hubs, which had a significant impact on the transfer and dissemination of misconceptions. Cuba itself saw how it was viewed in the North because of such media monopolies and denounced this view as a complete distortion of reality. Increasing literacy should also be a priority for the Special Rapporteur. Indeed, a lot had been done to ensure a broad enjoyment of freedom of opinion and expression but there was still a need to preserve the human rights of other peoples in the exercise of freedom of expression.
KIM PIL-WOO (Republic of Korea) said that few would deny that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. It was a reliable barometer of the level of protection of other human rights. Grave violations of the right to freedom on opinion and expression were still prevalent in the world today. The Republic of Korea supported this mandate.
RAJIV KUMAR CHANDER (India) said the right to freedom of opinion and expression was one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. It was also a pre-requisite for the realization of other human rights. India therefore strongly supported the proposal to extend the mandate for a period of three years. The mandate holder may continue to address new challenges including those which were referred to in the course of the interactive dialogue on the Special Rapporteur’s latest report. It was important that the focus must remain on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
JEANNINE VOLKEN (Switzerland) said that the freedom of opinion and expression was one of the fundamental pillars of a functioning and healthy democracy. The right to freedom of expression had been proclaimed in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and this Council had to benefit from the expertise of the Special Rapporteur to make valuable suggestions on how to preserve that freedom. Sadly, violations of freedom of expression were still rampant in many parts of the world, often found in contexts of arbitrary detention, persecution, harassment, and forced disappearances. Freedom of expression and religion were indivisible elements and should work in harmony with each other. Finally, the Swiss Government called upon the Council to renew this mandate unanimously as had been done previously in 2005.
BEATE STIRO (Norway) expressed Norway’s strong support of the mandate. This right constituted a pillar of democracy and reflected a country’s standard of justice and fairness. It was a fundamental human right that faced many challenges today. Through the exercise of this right, other rights were being protected. An active and critical public debate was a sign of strength. Freedom of opinion and expression should be seen as complementary. This could not be exercised in isolation. It should also be exercised with responsibility.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) noted that freedom of opinion and expression was a right enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and constituted an essential right of any democratic society. The Special Rapporteur had dealt positively with matters pertaining to these rights and he had carried out significant work under the former Commission and the Council. Argentina actively supported the draft resolution for the extension of this mandate.
MICHAEL S. KLECHELSKI (United States) said that citizens must be able to make their views known to their leaders. The ensemble of human rights could only be respected in a climate of openness. The comments made by the Special Rapporteur on defamation were both thoughtful and constructive, especially since the Council had shown some division with regards to this sensitive issue. While freedom of expression could sometimes cause harm or offence, there was no justification for limiting freedom of expression. The solution to such problems should be more dialogue, not less. Furthermore, the United States supported the renewal of Mr. Ligabo’s mandate without any conditions as it was fundamental to the promotion and protection of all human rights.
MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria) reaffirmed Algeria’s commitment to the right to freedom of opinion and expression. First, in the context of foreign occupation, this right was crucial. This issue should be tackled by the Special Rapporteur. Second, this right had to be linked to freedom of religion and it should not be used to defame religions. If the international community did not put an end to the impunity to those that hid behind freedom of expression, it would create a renewal of Islamophobia. Also, all mandate holders had to observe the Code of Conduct, particularly when writing their reports.
KATHARINA ROSE, of European Group of National Human Rights Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, in a joint statement, said they strongly supported the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and commended Mr. Ligabo for his work. State visits and recommendations to Governments continued to affirm that the right to question ideologies, especially as part of the work of human rights defenders and media professionals, was a part of the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression. The European Group of National Human Rights Institutions strongly supported the Special Rapporteur’s call for good judgment, tolerance and a sense of responsibility when addressing the legitimate freedom of expression concerns of a multicultural society. The Special Rapporteur had set the tone for a constructive and harmonious dialogue.
SUN KIM, of Human Rights Advocates, said that there were important rights not being addressed by the Council such as the right to vote, which could be included in the mandate of freedom of expression. The Special Rapporteur on the freedom of expression stated that the main issue was strengthening democracy and the rule of law, which directly implicated the right to vote. Ensuring equal voting rights was essential to maintaining a participatory democracy by allowing citizens to express their choices for who should run for their Governments. The right to vote in free and fair elections was also directly correlated with protecting other human rights, such as the right to peaceful assembly, the right to association, the right to participate in one’s Government and the right to be free from discrimination. Finally, while States should be responsible for guaranteeing fairness in their own voting procedures, there should be an international method for defining standards and addressing violations related to voting.
GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters without Borders, said that the freedom of expression and of the press had been on of the greatest gains in the debates leading to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Activists and civil society played an important part in the protection of this right, but the Special Rapporteur was the eyes and ears of this Council and the advocate of victims of this right. The mandate should be renewed and should not be changed.
HOSSAM BAHGAT, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, asked the Special Rapporteur for his views on a matter related to his mandate, which was the controversy stemming from some forms of expression that were found to be offensive to the religious feelings or beliefs of others. The Cairo Institute condemned incidents of deliberate stereotyping and stigmatization of certain minorities or groups, which led to the incitement of discrimination, hostility or violence against them. The Special Rapporteur’s views were also sought on how the mandate could address the related phenomenon that was common in the Arab region which was the abuse of broad and unqualified legal provisions on defamation or contempt of religions to restrict, punish or criminalize critical academic research that was not in line with the mainstream interpretations of religions, to censor forms of artistic expression deemed to contravene religious or moral codes, or to justify official or societal bigotry against religious minorities, including minority groups or beliefs within the Islamic region.
Concluding Remarks on the Review of the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Opinion and Expression
AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in concluding remarks, thanked the delegations for their contributions, especially the sponsors of this mandate. On the issue of incitement to religious or racial hatred, he reiterated that freedom of expression came with responsibilities not to trample on the rights of others. Throughout the exercise of his mandate, he had systematically focused on the incitement of hatred through the exercise of freedom of expression. He also reminded the Council members that he had duly addressed the issue of the Danish cartoons. He had stated on numerous occasions that freedom of expression should not be misused to target another group or to express offensive views. Moreover, he had argued that any limitations to the freedom of expression should be clearly defined with a view to preventing their subjective abuse by certain Governments. He also wished that the safety and protection of journalists be addressed in a worldwide study on this issue to assess strategies that could be implemented to combat this phenomenon. With regards to new technologies and other issues raised by delegations, these issues could also be taken up in the future under this mandate to accommodate the very wide diversity of opinions present in the Council.
TERRY CORMIER (Canada), concluding the debate, said that in today’s discussion, there had been a broad agreement on the importance of continuing consideration of the right to freedom. There was a consensus on the utility of the mandate. On the issue of religious intolerance, it was emphasized that freedom of thought and religion and freedom of expression were mutually reinforcing. Religious intolerance was harmful to everyone. This should be denounced. Canada was consistently combating this intolerance. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protected individuals, not religions. Protecting the rights of individuals to freedom of religion helped to preserve a healthy and flourishing faith. Even if freedom of expression was very important, governments could sometimes limit it. Any restrictions on the right to freedom had to remain consistent with international human rights laws. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was sufficiently broad and general in scope and permitted him to address any relevant issues. But it was believed that other mandates were better placed to address religious intolerance.
Introduction of Mandate of the Independent Expert on the Effects of Economic Reform Policies and Foreign Debt on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights
YURI GALA (Cuba), introducing the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, affirmed that all persons had the right to enjoy all rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Through the Millennium Development Goals, States had agreed to tackle debt problems and to adopt various measures at the national and international level in that regard.
Cuba recalled that in 1988 the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities had raised the question of external debt and called for a study on these rights. The Sub-Commission in 1992 called on the Secretary-General to prepare guidelines to serve as a basis for discussions between human rights bodies and national institutions. In 1996 the Sub-Commission was presented with a draft set of guidelines. In 1998 the Sub-Commission appointed an Independent Expert who submitted three reports and the same year a Special Rapporteur was appointed. Subsequently, the Commission on Human Rights established a single mandate for an Independent Expert on economic reform. The resolution set out the main substantive issues which had guided that mandate. The Special Rapporteur had been asked to prepare general guidelines with regard to his mandate. The new Human Rights Council extended his mandate and requested the High Commissioner to convene a meeting of experts to draft a revised set of general guidelines.
External debt of developing counties continued to grow and to characterize the harsh reality facing these countries. Lukewarm initiatives would not suffice to resolve the problem of external debt and to allow people to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate should be extended for a further period of three years. Cuba had submitted some revisions to the mandate which would be considered during the current session.
Statement by the Independent Expert on the Effects of Economic Reform Policies and Foreign Debt on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights
BERNARDS MUDHO, Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and culture rights, said that among the achievements of his mandate was the help that it provided to highly indebted poor countries, which were oftentimes the most affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. He called on this Council to renew this very important mandate.
Mr. Mudho reminded the Council that the Commission on Human Rights had established this mandate in April 2000 against the backdrop of the negative impacts on human rights observed as a result of structural adjustment programmes, particularly during the 1990s. Since then, gradual change was taking place because of the adoption of different approaches such as the emergence of poverty reduction strategies. It has also become more evident that economic reforms and foreign debt tended to be identified as issues to be addressed within such poverty reduction strategies among other elements such as decentralization, anti-corruption and social safety-nets.
Mr. Mudho recognized that debt burden and debt relief operations had an indirect and longer term influence on human rights against the backdrop of fiscal space. However, on the other hand, the design of economic reforms, such as the privatization of state owned countries and cutting trade and agricultural subsidies, could result in direct shocks to individual households and communities. This scenario, therefore, required a more holistic and strategic approach that aimed at ensuring appropriate fiscal space including international financial cooperation for the realization of human rights. The Human Rights Council could also consider refocusing the mandate within the same sphere of the impact of international and national economic management on human rights. Moreover, in a suggestion to support the future of this mandate, a possible way forward could be to reformulate the mandate around the broader theme of the effects of national and international public finances on fundamental human rights.
General Debate on the Review of the Mandate of the Independent Expert on the Effects of Economic Reform Policies and Foreign Debt on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights
DOMINIK FRELIH (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked the Special Rapporteur how his mandate could help States to put into practice their human rights obligations while combining economic reforms?
NAHIDA SOBHAN (Bangladesh) said the Independent Expert had done a commendable job. Economic reform policies and foreign debt affected countries in diverse ways, both positively and negatively. Most importantly these effects directly related to the fulfillment of basic fundamental human rights, which had so far remained ignored. The work of the Special Rapporteur had drawn attention to the fact that enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and national actions and international cooperation must reinforce each other. Bangladesh hoped that the Council would reflect on the draft guidelines prepared by Professor Mudho. Bangladesh fully supported the extension of the mandate of the Independent Expert.
MARC SOMDA (Burkina Faso) said that Burkina Faso attached great importance to Mr. Mudho’s mandate. Economic, social and cultural rights were closely linked to political rights and the Government was pleased with the reforms suggested by the Independent Expert. In the draft guidelines, the requests to take measures on treating foreign debt were certainly valuable and appreciated. Burkina Faso also supported the consideration of poverty as being a human rights violation. This could constitute a platform to fight for debt alleviation. In addition, Burkina Faso sincerely hoped that Mr. Mudho’s successor would work along those lines and fully supported the renewal of this important mandate.
DAVIDE INTEGLIA, of Centrist Democrat International, said that it was widely known that poverty was against human rights and basic freedoms. But it was widely accepted that human rights had not much to do with economic reforms. The eighth Millennium Development Goal stated that it was necessary to develop further an open trading and financial system that was rule based. How far was this from realisation? The world financial system was not rule-based and was threatening the wellness of third countries and the advanced world.
Concluding Remarks on the Review of the Mandate of the Independent Expert on the Effects of Economic Reform Policies, Foreign Debt on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights
BERNARDS MUDHO, Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, in concluding remarks, recalling the question posed to him by the former High Commissioner for Human Rights on what he was to do with the mandate, said it appeared that many remained unclear as to what the mandate sought to accomplish. There was certainly room for improvement on the mandate. With the appropriate encouragement from the Council along with from the most relevant national institutions the result of the work of the mandate could be more manifested. The mandate was still quite relevant. With regard to his report on Burkina Faso, it was believed this could be taken up by the new mandate holder.
YURI GALA (Cuba), in its concluding remarks, said that this mandate was crucial to the provision of basic services in debt burdened countries. The delegation was grateful to Mr. Mudho for his comments and his work as Independent Expert during the last six years. Cuba also hoped that his successor would continue this important work, whilst bearing in mind the foundations of the mandate. Next week, Cuba would hold an informal meeting on the draft resolution calling for the renewal of this mandate. In conclusion, Cuba hoped that the members of the Human Rights Council would treat this issue with the importance and consideration that it deserved.
Introduction of the Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
VEBJORN HEINES (Norway), introducing the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, said that people could be divided into three groups: those who made things happen, those who watched and those who wondered what happened. Human rights defenders fell into the first group. Their cause was to improve the lives and freedom of others. They were essential actors in ensuring that human rights were implemented on the ground. The mandate called the Special Representative to gather information on the situation of human rights defenders, to enter into dialogue with Governments and to make recommendations. The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders was not a binding instrument but the rights that were violated when the right of human rights defenders were violated were legally binding standards. The problem was a lack of compliance. More had to be done to improve the situation of human rights defenders. Governments should support and protect human rights defenders. The work of the Special Representative had been crucial to many defenders. The mandate had played a significant role in the defence of women human rights defenders, as they faced specific risks. Human rights defenders should also be assisted in communicating their message to the world as every Government had to tolerate criticism.
Statement Read on Behalf of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
GAY MAcDOUGALL, Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee of the Special Procedures Mandate Holders, reading out the statement on behalf of HINA JILANI, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, said that the three words that could best describe the direction of the development of the mandate on the situation of human rights defenders were protection, collaboration and knowledge. The central concern of this mandate was the protection of human rights defenders. The volume of information from defenders, governments and other actors to the mandate had increased over the years, more because of the credibility of the mandate as an effective mechanism for the protection of defenders than because of an increase in the number of attacks against defenders. One of the factors that allowed the mandate to build this credibility was the collaboration that was established with governments. As compared to eight years ago, a number of regional mechanisms and instruments for the protection of human rights defenders were now in place.
Today, there was more knowledge on human rights defenders, Ms. Jilani’s statement said. Through communications, country visits and thematic reports this mandate had given content to what compliance with the Declaration on human rights defenders meant. There was also more knowledge on the thematic areas relevant to the implementation of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. As to the title of the mandate, it was believed that the decision to appoint the mandate holder as a Special Representative of the Secretary-General was well considered at the time that the Commission created the mandate. The title of Special Representative of the Secretary-General was an important factor in opening many doors, especially within the United Nations. Holding this title had made it easier for the Special Representative to have a dialogue with relevant actors at a level that was important in order to achieve the required impact. Member States had the opportunity in this review process of not only preserving but also of strengthening the mandate and its functions. Retaining the title was an important signal in this respect. Any change in the title after eight years of the existence of the mandate, on the other hand, would inevitably be seen and perceived as a decision to weaken the mandate, even if it was not the intention.
General Debate on the Review of the Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC supported the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders. The OIC wished to treat all Special Procedures mandate holders of the Council on an equal footing. The title of this mandate holder should be streamlined in line with the other mandate holders. The primary objective of this mandate should remain to ensure the overall implementation of the Declaration on the Rights and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Dialogue with Governments was an essential part of this mandate like other Special Procedures. However, there was no need to qualify the modalities of this dialogue which should be left to the mutually agreeable formula between the mandate holder and the State concerned.
DOMINIK FRELIH (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that it was fitting that the Council had the opportunity to commend the work of the Special Representative Hina Jilani on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 10th anniversary of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. The increase in the number of communications and the above-average rate of response was cause for some celebration. However, it was also clear that much remained to be done. Ms. Jilani, a human rights defender in her own right, had made immeasurable progress over the last eight years in highlighting the valuable work of human rights defenders and, indeed, their plight. In the face of great personal risk, she had strived to create the type of environment that not only allowed human rights defenders to operate freely but also permitted the full and free enjoyment of human rights. The European Union also noted the significance of adopting a broad definition of the term “human rights defender”, which was activity rather than status-based. Lastly, it emphasized the particular importance of empowering civil society and non-governmental organizations at the grassroots level to engage with the mandate.
ROBERT-JAN SIEBEN (Netherlands) applauded the work of the Special Representative. Human rights defenders were the ones that were putting into practice what was discussed in the Council. It was important to protect their work. Great importance was attached to those who were defending all human rights. The Netherlands strongly supported this very important mandate.
MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil) said that Brazilian civil society and the Government firmly supported the continuation of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. As a sign of Brazil’s commitment and efforts was the fact that President Lula Inancio da Silva had signed in February 2007 the decree establishing a National Policy on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders. A legal framework for the National Programme for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders was elaborated last November 2007 with full participation of civil society, in Belém, State of Pará. Rules and procedures were established for the implementation and universalization of the National Programme.
ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) said that the mandate of the Special Representative on human rights defenders was a crucial link in the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. The Government of the Russian Federation supported the renewal of this mandate and was working actively on a resolution on this subject, currently under review. The category of human rights defenders should be considered under the strict United Nations definition. The Russian Federation drew the attention of the Special Representative to the responsibilities of human rights defenders, especially with regards to the abuse of their particular status.
CHRIS HOVIUS (Canada) thanked the Special Representative for his work for the past eight years. Many individuals were risking their life worldwide to defend the rights of others. To those people, the Special Representative was a critical protection mechanism. The Special Representative had been able to draw attention to the situations of thousands of human rights defenders. Human rights defenders continued to be the targets of human rights violations. Their strength and perseverance were commended. The Council could demonstrate its renewed commitment to this issue by renewing this mandate.
JEANNINE VOLKEN (Switzerland) said the Declaration on the Rights and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms lay at the heart of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General played a role which was a key in the effective promotion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was no doubt that the Declaration should continue to be the guiding thread of the mandate. Switzerland did not support efforts aimed at re-defining the term of human rights defenders. In order for a State to act in a democratic fashion, that State needed a vibrant civil society capable of bringing forth new ideas and concepts.
MICHAEL S. KLECHELSKI (United States) said that among the thematic Special Procedures, the mandate for human rights defenders focussed specifically on the essential ability of individuals and groups to freely and without harassment or intimidation mount a defence for human rights. In every region of the world, men and women were working peacefully, and often at great risk to themselves and their families, to secure human rights and fundamental freedoms, to follow their consciences and speak their minds without fear. These aspirations, though common to so many, were unfortunately still denied to millions worldwide. During her tenure, the Special Representative had not only called the Council’s attention to troubling situations in specific countries, but she had also focussed on the issues of democratization, emergency situations, security and women’s empowerment, among others.
KATHARINA ROSE, of Uganda Human Rights Commission in a joint statement with the Senegalese Committee for Human Rights and the National Human Rights Commission of Rwanda, said that they strongly supported the work of the Special Representative. Country visits had proved to be important tools to assess the situation on the ground. The situation of women defenders was an issue of concern. Joint efforts had to be enhanced to promote an appropriate environment. National institutions had an important role in ensuring that the rule of law and international human rights norms were implemented at the national level. The mandate was fully supported.
ANDREW HUDSON, of Human Rights First, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders was a vital mandate that offered substantial and important protection to human rights defenders around the world. The Special Representative’s work had frequently led to the release of defenders from prison or the curtailment of attacks against them. The mandate was unique among the Special Procedures because it not only ensured the protection of the defender of their right to defend human rights but also more broadly promoted the existence of favorable conditions for human rights activities. Human Rights First paid tribute to the caliber of work of the current and founding Special Representative, Hina Jilani. The review of the mandate offered an important opportunity for the Human Rights Council to affirm its strong commitment to the protection of human rights defenders. This was particularly timely as 2008 marked the 10th anniversary of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. The Council was urged to renew the mandate and States were urged to fully cooperate with the Special Representative.
KATRINE THOMASEN, of International Service for Human Rights, said that the mandate offered the prospect for an increased level of human rights protection. The work of Ms. Jilani had had a tangible impact on the protection of human rights defenders. By supporting defenders working on all areas of human rights, the Special Representative contributed to the Council’s obligation to pay equal attention to all human rights in a non-selective manner. The International Service for Human Rights therefore urged the Council to renew and strengthen the mandate of the Special Representative.
CURTIS DOEBBLER, of North-South XXI, expressed their strong support for the mandate.
MARY LAWLOR, of Front Line – The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, in a joint statement with the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) and the World Organization Against Torture, said they strongly supported the renewal of the mandate of the Special Representative on human rights defenders. The associated non-governmental organizations congratulated the current and founding Special Representative, Hina Jilani, for her comprehensive work on women human rights defenders who were at risk to certain forms of violence and restrictions because they were women. They urged the Human Rights Council to affirm the renewal of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, including its commitment to effectively integrate human rights of women as well as include a gender perspective in its work.
Concluding Remarks on Review of Mandate of Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders
VEBJORN HEINES (Norway), wrapping up the debate, said that Norway was encouraged by the strong support expressed by all for the renewal of this mandate. On the issue of the ongoing process of informal consultations, prior to 15 December 2007, Norway provided all interested governments with copies of the tentative draft resolution. In total, four open-ended informal consultations had been held to address the draft resolution on this mandate and Norway aimed for consensus.
1Joint statement: Human Rights First; Amnesty International; International Service for Human Rights; Front Line, the International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders; World Organization against Torture and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA).
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08029E