COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON DRAFT OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with the Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the mandate holders on the right to education, human rights and extreme poverty, and human rights and transnational corporations.
Catarina de Albuquerque, Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that the Working Group had concluded its mandate and had not objected to the transmission of the draft Optional Protocol to the Council. Most delegations had expressed the view that the document was a good compromise text. This draft was the result of the skills, engagement, conviction, flexibility, spirit of compromise, intelligence and enthusiasm of a large group of delegates. The draft Optional Protocol provided for a procedure of individual communications as well as optional procedures of inquiries and inter-State communications. The Working Group had concluded its work and there were now ongoing informal negotiations on a draft resolution. It was hoped that they would soon be concluded and that the Council would be able to adopt the draft Optional Protocol during the present session. In doing-so the Council would take an important first step to re-establish the balance between civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights.
In the interactive dialogue on the report, speakers said the draft Optional Protocol was a delicate compromise that had evolved from initially widely divergent positions. Some urged the Council to adopt it by consensus without any changes, while others said that article 2 of the Optional Protocol excluded part 1 of the Covenant, including the issue of self-determination. The Optional Protocol was a protocol to the whole Covenant, not to only part of it. This defect should be fixed through a clear reference to all rights set out in the Covenant.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were the delegations of Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Chile on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), Russian Federation, Cuba, United Kingdom, Italy, India, France, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa, Mexico, Bangladesh, Brazil, Algeria, Portugal, Argentina, Poland, the Holy See, Austria, Turkey, Syria, Finland, Iran, Ecuador, Croatia, and Qatar.
Also speaking were representatives of Human Rights Commission of Philippines, Foodfirst Information and Action Network FIAN, Europe Third World Center, Indian Council, Columbian Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the mandate holders on the right to education, human rights and extreme poverty, and human rights and transnational corporations.
In concluding remarks, Vernor Munoz Villabolos, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, noted that most of the questions were directed at the specific roles and measures in protecting education during emergency situations. In his view, part of the measures should firstly include the need to develop indicators, linked to natural disasters and the causes of discrimination in this context. Good practices needed to be developed in this regard and it was important to tackle the causes. It was urgent to develop educational plans for emergency situations which could rapidly help to restore education services.
Maria Magdalena Sepulveda, Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, said that she was encouraged by the number of Member States of the Council who supported and were committed to further developing mechanisms to deal with extreme poverty. The notion of participation was at the centre of the human rights approach to poverty. The people living in extreme poverty were important players in policy formation and they must be involved at all levels: design, implementation and evaluation. These people should take part in all of the technical processes in the formation of policies that affected them directly.
John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, said his report outlined the concept of due diligence which meant companies needed to be aware about impacts of their actions on human rights. That needed to be further developed. It required answering questions like how far could businesses in general be addressed before addressing sectoral, regional and size of businesses concerns. Security regulations and corporate law were important tools and he would welcome suggestions on their use.
In the interactive dialogue on the reports of the mandate holders on the right to education, human rights and extreme poverty and human rights and transnational corporations, speakers said that extreme poverty impeded the practical enjoyment of human rights. It had negative impacts on all rights and undermined all spheres of society like a domino effect. It caused social exclusion and could be a source of tension and affect national security. The issue of providing education during natural disasters was underlined. A rights-based approach to education was imperative, and the goal of a human rights-based approach to education was simple. The conceptual framework presented in the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations was welcomed. His recognition of the central role of duties of States in protecting all rights, including in relation to business activities, was also welcomed.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the right to education, human rights and extreme poverty, and human rights and transnational corporations were the delegations of South Africa, Brazil, Costa Rica, Azerbaijan and Sri Lanka.
Also speaking were representatives of the Conseil Consultatif des Droits de L’Homme Morocco, Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, International Movement ATD Fourth World, Amnesty International, International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity, in a joint statement with Bischofliches Hilfswerk Misereor and Global Policy Forum, World Vision International, in a joint statement with International Save the Children Alliance, International Commission of Jurists, International Indian Treaty Council, Union de l'Action Feminine, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, in a joint statement with German Institute for Human Rights, National Consultative Commission on Human Rights of France, Danish Institute for Human Rights, and the Mexican Human Rights Commission, Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH); Asia Pacific Women's Watch; Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions; and Baha'i International Community, Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Indian Council of South America, in a joint statement with International Human Rights Association of American Minorities and Union of Arab Jurists, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, and the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights (APDH).
The Council is next scheduled to meet at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will hold a general debate on reports by the United Nations Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Council has before it the report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its fifth session (A/HRC/8/7 and Corr.1) which contains a summary of the discussions held by the Working Group during the two parts of its fifth session, from 4 to 8 February and from 31 March to 4 April 2008, respectively, where the Working Group discussed a first and a second revised draft of the Optional Protocol. The Optional Protocol would enable the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to receive and consider communications submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, under the jurisdiction of a State Party, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in Parts II and III of the Covenant on Economic, Social and cultural Rights by that State Party.
Presentation by the Chairperson of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
CATARINA DE ALBUQUERQUE, Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, reporting on the fifth session of the open-ended Working Group, said that the Working Group had concluded its mandate and had not objected to the transmission of the draft Optional Protocol to the Council. Most delegations had expressed the view that the document had been a good compromise text. It was the culmination of a long road. The idea of bringing complaints cases of alleged violations of economic, social and cultural rights had started to be discussed within the United Nations 60 years ago. While not perfect, the draft Optional Protocol was still a great text. It was, for many, a dream coming true. For many, it represented the reassurance that their causes might and would be heard by the United Nations. This draft was the result of the skills, engagement, conviction, flexibility, spirit of compromise, intelligence and enthusiasm of a large group of delegates. Thanks were expressed to the many contributors.
Ms. De Albuquerque said that the draft Optional Protocol provided for a procedure of individual communications as well as optional procedures of inquiries and inter-State communications. It introduced new elements, compared to existing communications procedures: it included new admissibility criteria, and it introduced a provision enabling the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to decline to consider a communication where it did not reveal that the author had suffered a clear disadvantage. Another innovative article mentioned the possibility of the Committee to make its good offices available to the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter.
Ms. De Albuquerque said that the Working Group had done its best during the past five years to get as close as possible to an ideal and acceptable text. The Working Group had concluded its work and there were now ongoing informal negotiations on a draft resolution. It was hoped that they would soon be concluded and that the Council would be able to adopt the draft Optional Protocol during the present session. In doing-so the Council, would take an important first step to re-establish the balance between civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights.
Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that inspired by their own regional normative and institutional framework, the African Group had supported this initiative which would enhance the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, and would signal a new era to end a decade-long artificial division between all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The African Group also commended the Chairperson of the Working Group for her active participation and guidance at the African regional consultation held in Cairo in January of this year. They welcomed the constructive spirit and engagement in the Working Group on the Optional Protocol since its first meeting in 2004. Significant progress was achieved at the fifth session of the Working Group which allowed for the transmission of the text of the Optional Protocol to the Council and signalled the time had come for its adoption. The African Group expressed their overall satisfaction with the text of the Optional Protocol, recognizing that comprises were always necessary in difficult negotiations.
The African Group said that despite shortcomings, the most effective means of exploring and adopting international cooperation and assistance in the Protocol would be the inclusion of the modest but potentially beneficial provision on the establishment of a Trust Fund. They welcomed the provisions on interim and protective measures, the enquiry procedure, and innovative article on friendly settlement. At the same time they were happy to see the numerous proposals which were originally designed to undermine the integrity of the text and the effectiveness of the Protocol as a whole did not result in significant damage to the Protocol. The African Group said that they had always maintained that the Optional Protocol should be comprehensive in scope.
EDUARDO CHIHUALIAF (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries GRULAC, thanked the Chairperson on the Working Group for her report and congratulated her for her efforts. GRULAC had always defended the indivisibility of human rights and argued for the indivisibility of civil and political rights on one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. GRULAC had supported the work of the Working Group. It supported the draft Optional Protocol as it was written and called for its adoption unchanged.
SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) thanked the Working Group for their effective work. The Working Group had created a quality document that would undoubtedly improve the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. It ensured that there was a counterweight. The text was obviously not ideal but it had been the result of complex negotiations. It had led to a balance in opinions and it was vital to ensure this balance remained. The Russian Federation hoped that during the ongoing negotiations on some of the remaining aspects the achieved balance that had been attained in the Working Group would be maintained. In its view, the adoption of the Optional Protocol by the Council without a vote was vital. This would enable them to achieve the further realisation of these vital rights.
RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba) said that the progress during the fifth session of the Working Group was satisfactory. One element remained to be agreed on, and they hoped it would be agreed upon with consensus. Cuba supported the Portuguese initiative. The adoption of this Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was a step in the right direction. However, it was not enough to adopt this Protocol to fill the gap for civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. There were other external factors that must be met by States for people to enjoy their economic, social and cultural rights. Multinational and trade institutions should be part of the process. Developed States should meet the 0.07 per cent of GDP to give to official development assistance in order for the world to come to the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights.
MELANIE HOPKINS (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom believed all human rights to be indivisible and mutually reinforcing be they economic, social, cultural, civil, or political. It did not consider that economic, social and cultural rights lent themselves to third party adjudication in the same way as civil and political rights. The United Kingdom was sceptical of the benefits of a complaints mechanism. It participated in the negotiating process, but favoured an a la carte approach. States would be monitored by their periodic reporting to the Committee and through the Universal Periodic Review. The adoption of a comprehensive approach in the final text would make it difficult for the United Kingdom to become a State Party of the Protocol. The United Kingdom attached particular importance to the requirement in Article 8 for the Committee to address the reasonableness of the steps taken by a State Party. The United Kingdom did not support the inclusion of a trust fund in the Optional Protocol.
NICOLETTA PICCIRILLO (Italy) expressed Italy’s most sincere appreciation for the admirable job done by the Working Group during the five years of negations. Italy believed that the draft text was a compromise among the different opinions expressed by all delegations on several delicate issues. The current text represented a constructive and significant outcome in strengthening the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. Italy was confident that the text would be adopted as it was.
RAJIV KUMAR CHANDER (India) thanked Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque for her report and presentation. Under her successful leadership, the Working Group was able to agree on a text for transmission to the Human Rights Council for its consideration. The negotiations were difficult and extensive, spanning over five years. The final text was a delicate compromise that evolved from initially widely divergent positions. India would have preferred many changes to the text but accepted the compromise. India recognized the concerns that some delegations had and indicated their openness for the amendments put forth by these delegations. Through the informal consultations held earlier, India recognized that concerned delegations had further amendments in mind, and this should be avoided. Such an approach could lead to a chain reaction with other delegations proposing further changes. India supported the adoption of the text by the Council as received from the Working Group without any changes. India also found it pertinent to mention that the proposed Optional Protocol was a procedural instrument to enable the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights to receive communications and complaints from individuals or groups of individuals under the jurisdiction of a State Party to the Optional Protocol. India said it was not meant to address political issues and therefore must refrain from injecting political elements into the text.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said after five years of negotiations, the Human Rights Council now had the chance to adopt by consensus the Optional Protocol. During these negotiations, France had honoured its commitments to individual human rights. The Optional Protocol covered all rights without allowing the State to select any of them. States were given prerogatives to protect specific areas of concern. The text was balanced and France appreciated the good sense of everybody and thanked the Chairperson on the Working Group. France hoped that the Human Rights Council at this session and the General Assembly next autumn would adopt the text. This would take place during the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which gave this process particular importance. France would welcome consensus on the Optional Protocol.
DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said that Indonesia believed that the promotion and protection of human rights had to be based on the principles of universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness. Great importance was also attached to the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights. Indonesia had always been of the view that there should be a balanced approach between all rights. The Optional Protocol, if adopted, would thus provide an important opportunity to reiterate the equal status of all human rights. The draft was a compromise text, which did not fully reflect all the views expressed, nor did it accommodate the interests of all concerned States and parties. Indonesia however remained open-minded and flexible in the deliberations and hoped that a consensus could be reached as soon as possible.
SYED ALI ASAD GILLANI (Pakistan) said that during the last session of the Working Group many delegations expressed their reservations on the current text of the Optional Protocol. Despite this the Working Group agreed to transmit the text of the Optional Protocol to the Human Rights Council for its consideration, pending resolution of differences on Article 2. Pakistan said that they had reservations regarding Article 2, due to the exclusion of Part 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from Article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Efforts were being made to find common grounds on the proposed language of the Article. Pakistan thanked Ms. Albuquerque who participated in the consultations on April 30 to find a solution to Article 2, and appreciated the Mission of Portugal and other delegations in this regard.
Pakistan said that the language of Article 2 of the Optional Protocol was flawed. The draft Protocol was an Optional Protocol to the entire Covenant, and was not a protocol to only Part II and Part III, and therefore it could not draw a distinction between rights and exclude one full set of rights. In consultation with other delegations, Pakistan said they were exploring a formulation that would adequately address concerns of all Member States.
BEULAH NAIDOO (South Africa) thanked the Chairperson of the Working Group. Under her guidance the Working Group had produced the Optional Protocol and submitted it to the Human Rights Council for adoption. South Africa had supported this initiative since the start of negotiations. The draft Optional Protocol represented the views of growing cross-regional support for an effective instrument which would provide for remedies to victims at an international level. The Optional Protocol represented a significant step forward in ensuring access to justice for victims of all human rights violations. It was pleasing to note that African countries had been at the forefront of the international effort to enhance human rights protection. South Africa supported the decision of the Working Group to submit the draft Optional Protocol to the Human Rights Council and urged that it be adopted by consensus.
ELIA DEL CARMEN SOSA NISHIZAKI (Mexico) thanked the Working Group for its work which had led to this important moment in history. The Optional Protocol promoted the justiciability of all human rights. It was hoped that the draft would be approved by consensus by the Council and the General Assembly. Mexico noted that the nature of the document was procedural; it did not amend nor transform obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The adoption of the Optional Protocol would send a clear signal to each person attaching importance to economic, social and cultural rights.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that all issues were not reflected in the draft Optional Protocol as they had hoped and Bangladesh knew many others were of the same sentiment. This was a difficult negotiating process and one of compromise. Bangladesh was happy that the Working Group did not resort to an a la carte approach; such an approach would have undermined the human rights system.
MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil) said Brazil supported the mechanisms to strengthen development. The draft Optional Protocol was essential. Brazil restated its support of the indivisibility of all human rights. It supported the draft Optional Protocol. Selective treatment of articles must be avoided. The a la carte option represented a retrograde step to normal practices in addressing the protection of human rights. Brazil believed that consensus for the Optional Protocol could be achieved and called on the Human Rights Council to approve and adopt the Optional Protocol.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) thanked the Working Group for its work. However, the Representative of Egypt had raised some of points that had also been reiterated by Pakistan. The current draft recommended that the Optional Protocol would be only applicable to part II and III of the Covenant and that it would not apply to Part I, which included the principle of self determination. The mandate of the Working Group was not to add or remove rights. The right of people to self determination was part of the United Nations Charter and the United Nations system as a whole. Was the Council planning to revise the United Nations Charter? It was important to include all parts of the Covenant in the Optional Protocol.
FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal) said that Portugal had recommended Ms. De Albuquerque as Chairperson of the Working Group in 2004, a proposal that had been backed by Regional Groups. Ms. Albuquerque’s great human rights expertise, good negotiation skills and tremendous and relentless energy, even during difficult times and notwithstanding personal sacrifice, had strongly contributed to this success. Portugal thanked her for her service to the human rights cause. Portugal expressed gratitude to all delegations that had participated in the negotiations that had contributed to the elaboration of the draft Optional Protocol. In particular, Portugal thanked the informal Group of Friends of the Optional Protocol, which had been fundamental in finding solutions and building support. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was also thanked for the tireless support in the process. The High Commissioner was always clear and determined in encouraging all Member States to elaborate the present Optional Protocol.
The Council during this session had a historical opportunity to put an end to the disparities between the various human rights. Portugal had proposed to the Council a draft resolution that aimed to adopt the draft Optional Protocol and send it to the General Assembly for final adoption. Informal consultations on the draft resolution had taken place and Portugal hoped that the draft resolution would be supported by all the delegations and would be approved by consensus.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said Argentina had actively participated in and supported the Working Group that drafted the Optional Protocol. Argentina also supported the broad view that the Optional Protocol took. The Working Group had worked over five years and this period had included much fierce debate, but it had produced a compromise text. Argentina firmly supported the compromise text and called for its adoption in the current Human Rights Council session.
JERZY CIECHANSKI (Poland) said that the idea of individual complaints to the violations of economic, social and cultural rights had many supporters among States. Yet, it was remarkable that in this case, a considerable number of countries with proven records of respect to human rights had expressed serious reservations about the practicality of individual complaints as an effective mechanism. Some of them had expressed the fear that that procedure might be used to alter and broaden State obligations under the Covenant. Poland had taken due regard that the rulings of the Committee did not have a binding character, nor that it would with the adoption of the Optional Protocol.
SILVANO M. TOMASI (Holy See) said that the Holy See associated itself with previous speakers in thanking the Chairperson of the Open-ended Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Ms. Albuquerque, for her efforts and firmness in carrying out her work. In the fight against poverty, especially extreme poverty, the international community had set many objectives, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights served as a major framework for the achievement of those goals. The steps that had been taken to increase its effectiveness through new mechanisms were a sign of the continued determination to look at implementing all human rights in a balanced way. The Optional Protocol represented a positive step towards a fair social and international order, and in protecting and promoting all human rights without distinction.
MICHAEL SCHOISWOHL (Austria) thanked the members and the Chairperson of the Working Group and welcomed the creation of an individual complaints mechanism to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This was an important step to further enhance and strengthen the human rights protection system. Austria had been engaged in the drafting process. The new mechanism could only be viable with broad membership and effective implementation in all States parties. The Optional Protocol needed to ensure the national specificities in the implementation of the human rights obligations under the Covenant. Austria understood that language of the draft Optional Protocol in its eventually adopted version would recognize the variety of means and choices available to States when implementing their obligations under the Covenant.
TUGBA SARAYONLU ETENSEL (Turkey) acknowledged the challenge in bridging the divergences over the draft Optional Protocol. The text had improved during the last sessions of the Working Group. Turkey still believed that the final outcome was not entirely satisfactory. Throughout the negotiations, Turkey had supported the opt-out approach, thus, retention of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the draft text. This option would have provided States with a certain degree of flexibility, given the distinct nature of economic, social and cultural rights. They were not convinced by arguments that such an approach would create hierarchy among the two sets of rights. However, Turkey was ready to join consensus.
ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) thanked the Chairperson of the Working Group and its members for elaborating the draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and further expressed appreciation to the candid and inclusive manner in which Ms. Albuquerque had conducted the intergovernmental negotiations throughout the different sessions of the Working Group. Syria stated for the record concern about the selective nature of Article 2 of the draft Protocol. The article ignored the central role of Article 1 of the Covenant to the full realization of all other human rights because it had set terms of reference of the Protocol on the basis of Article 2 and 3 of the Covenant. It was unacceptable to have a process of cherry picking, whereby an obliteration of Article 1 of the Covenant would only raise more scepticism and reduced consensus. Syria requested that this defect be fixed through a clear reference to all rights set out by the Covenant; and in doing so the Covenant would be saved from being born with one leg.
PEKKA METSO (Finland) congratulated the Chairperson of the Working Group. Finland considered all human rights to be universal and indivisible. The draft Optional Protocol was a great step forward. The negotiated text had the full support of Finland. The text reflected in the best possible way the compromise achieved in the discussions. It encouraged all members to respect the compromise and the work carried out to achieve it. Finland looked forward to the adoption of the Optional Protocol during this session of the Human Rights Council
ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran) commended the valuable efforts of the Working Group. Iran was pleased that the draft Optional Protocol was going to be adopted at the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This provided an ample opportunity to reiterate the equal status of all human rights. The international community had to treat all rights equally. Iran believed that the scope of the Optional Protocol should cover the contents of all the rights set forth in the Covenant. Concerns of some States in this regard had to be taken into account.
JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador) said that Ecuador was faithful to the principles of the international mandates and treaties to which it was a party. The draft Optional Protocol provided an instrument to individual complaints under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There was a possibility of ensuring these economic, social and cultural rights could be provided by the State to progress development. The Optional Protocol did not exclude the rights under the Covenant. Ecuador fully supported the statement made by Chile on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States and said that the text should not be changed based on the extensive work that had taken place.
The Representative of Croatia, thanked the Chairperson of the Working Group. The text was agreed upon at the Working Group’s last session. It had not been an easy task. There were many reasons for hesitation. The adoption of the Optional Protocol now would reinforce the idea that all rights were universal and indivisible. Croatia had supported the work since its beginning. It supported the comprehensive approach towards the Optional Protocol. There was a need for progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights in accordance with the different levels of development. Croatia encouraged all delegations to consider and approve the resolution calling for an adoption of the Optional Protocol.
FAISAL ABDULLA AL-HENZAB (Qatar), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, expressed thanks for the efforts of the Working Group. The Arab Group underscored the need to move to negotiations which would lead to consensus and to adopt the text as soon as possible. None of the rights in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should be forgotten. For the Arab Group, it was still necessary to make some amendments to the text in order to achieve balance with regard to the operative paragraph 2.
CECILIA R. V. QUISUMBING, of Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, in a joint statement with German Institute for Human Rights, National Consultative Commission on Human Rights of France, Danish Institute for Human Rights, and the Mexican Human Rights Commission, welcomed the transmission by the Working Group on the draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the Human Rights Council. The Commission firmly supported the adoption of the draft Optional Protocol in its present format by the Council during the session. The text was a result of an intensive, transparent and participatory working process under the outstanding leadership of Working Group’s Chairperson, Ms. Albuquerque. The text comprised essential elements that were needed for practical and effective international remedy to empower alleged victims of violations to lodge a communication under the covenant. Despite comprises made to the final text, it by and large represented a far-reaching consensus with all actors involved. The organization underlined the importance of having an Optional Protocol which succeeded in putting economic, social and cultural rights on equal footing with civil and political rights in terms of institutions and procedures.
SADRA RATJEN, of Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH); Asia Pacific Women's Watch; Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions; and Baha'i International Community, welcomed the draft Optional Protocol. It did not see all of its demands in the draft, but considered the text as a significant achievement. It built on the existing communication mechanisms of other protocols. It covered part I and II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allowed communications from individuals or groups of individuals concerning alleged violations of States’ obligations under the Covenant. They supported a comprehensive approach and the inclusion of Part I of the Covenant and urged Member States of the Human Rights Council to adopt the Optional Protocol and submit it to the General Assembly.
BEATRICE SAWADOGO, of Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said that the Council had now before it the draft Optional Protocol. The progress made in this regard was welcomed. Concern was expressed over the sacrifice of self-determination on the altar of consensus. Excluding this right was extremely grave. It was there to protect the sovereignty of all States. It was one of the elementary rights of every citizen. Adopting this Optional Protocol would be important in order to enable the Committee to hear communications but it should not be adding new rights nor removing existing rights. A second item of concern was that according to a provision of the Optional Protocol, the Committee was meant to determine whether a state policy was found to be “responsible” or not. It was felt that instead of this, measures taken by States should rather be assessed.
RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, in a joint statement with International Human Rights Association of American Minorities and Union of Arab Jurists, said that the right to self-determination for indigenous people must be included in the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in order for indigenous people’s rights to be protected, and for them to protect themselves. The exclusion of Article I should be revisited and as such included in the Optional Protocol. Minimum standards should be identified, and according to Article 41120 in December 1986 the standard settings inclusion was established for all frameworks. This should be respected and addressed in order to ensure that full rights for the indigenous peoples were protected.
ISABEL HEYER, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, attached great importance to the draft Optional Protocol. The Secretary-General of the United Nations had denounced numerous violations of economic, social and cultural rights. All rights were interdependent. It was urgent that a mechani