HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES TRADITIONAL VALUES, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee today continued to discuss requests addressed to the Advisory Committee stemming from the Human Rights Council resolutions and took up the issues of promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of mankind, the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, and human rights and international solidarity.

Vladimir Kartashkin, Chairperson of the Drafting Group for the report on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of mankind, said that there were certain traditional values - dignity, freedom and responsibility - enshrined in international human rights instruments and the Drafting Group would examine how these values could help promote human rights. There should not be a coercive imposition of the values of one civilization on other societies but rather all values should impact and influence one another so that civilization would take the best of each tradition. Mr. Kartashkin noted that though the enjoyment of some values in a number of societies often came up against barriers as populations continued to live under traditions which contradicted basic principles in international human rights law, there was a gradual implementation of human rights mechanisms around the world. The Drafting Group would address the following issues: a definition and understanding of traditional values, the role of religion and human rights, how to ensure freedom and dignity as a duty of each State while at the same time considering the duties and responsibilities of the individual, and regional aspects of human rights. In February 2012 an interim document would be presented to indicate the results of the Drafting Group’s work.

The following Committee members took the floor: Latif Hüseynov, Vladimir Kartashkin, Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Shigeki Sakamoto, Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Dheerujlall Seetulsing, Chen Shiqiu, Mona Zulficar, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Anantonia Reyes Prado, Halima Embarek Warzazi, Chung Chinsung and Alfred Ntunduguru Karokora.

Also speaking this afternoon were the following Member States: United States, Bolivia, Pakistan, Cuba, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Algeria, Morocco and Namibia. Non-governmental organizations speaking included: Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, International Service for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

The Committee then took up the topic of enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, introduced by Dheerujlall Seetulsing, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on international cooperation, who said the report reviewed international cooperation on the basis of existing United Nations’ text, including the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The report offered a number of means for cooperation, including encouraging States parties to ratify all human rights treaties and eliminate reservations they had entered and providing incentives to States parties to apply human rights treaties internally as well as assisting States parties in the preparation of the Universal Periodic Review reports.

The following Committee members took the floor: Vladimir Kartashkin, Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Dheerujlall Seetulsing and Chen Shiqiu. The Indian Council of South America also took the floor.

The Committee then took up the topic of human rights and international solidarity introduced by Chen Shiqiu, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on international solidarity, who presented a preliminary draft paper on human rights and internal solidarity. Mr. Chen noted the following areas that were included in the draft paper: the definition of scope, the legal framework, the values and relationship with other human rights instruments, and the promotion and realization of the right to solidarity. Mr. Chen stated that by February 2012, the final draft of the paper would be completed.

The following Committee members took the floor to talk about international solidarity: Latif Hüseynov, Vladimir Kartashkin, Dheerujlall Seetulsing, Chen Shiqiu, Mona Zulficar, Anantonia Reyes Prado and Chen Shiqiu. China also took the floor.

The next public meeting of the Advisory Committee will be held on Thursday, 11 August at 11:30 a.m., when it is scheduled to continue to discuss the work of the Drafting Group on traditional values and human rights.

Opening Statement

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Chairperson, said that since the beginning of this week, the Advisory Committee had met in private to kick start the consideration of this new mandated research, which should be presented to the Human Rights Council before its twenty-first session.

Promoting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms through a Better Understanding of Traditional Values of Mankind

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on traditional values, said that there were certain traditional values - dignity, freedom and responsibility - enshrined in international human rights instruments and the Drafting Group would examine how these values could help the promotion of human rights. In the research to be undertaken, issues would be addressed where there was not only agreement but also different points of view among States. The Human Rights Council mentioned that these values set out in their resolution lay at the foundation of all human rights despite differences related to culture, gender, language, or tradition; these values were universal and promoted the universality of human rights. The Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Arab and other values were equal and made a significant contribution to the modern world and the development of human rights and freedom. There should not be a coercive imposition of the values of one civilization on another society but they should impact and influence one another so that civilization would take the best values of all traditions.

The enjoyment of these values in a number of societies often came up against barriers as many populations continued to live in the constraints of traditions which contradicted basic principles in international human rights law, such as equality. At the same time it was important to state that gradually these values would be adopted by all countries. For example, the United States, where in 1920 women were given equal voting rights with men and only in the 1950s was the civil rights code adopted. The idea of the universalization of human rights as expressed in the Vienna Declaration stated that though there were different historical and cultural values which were important, States, irrespective of their social, cultural and economic systems were responsible for the promotion of all human rights and freedoms, and this should inform the work of the Drafting Group. In the Tehran Conference in 1968 it was stated that the main aim of the United Nations organizations concerning human rights was the achievement of each and every human being to the maximum amount of freedom and dignity and in order to achieve this the laws of each country, irrespective of their traditions, should provide to their citizens the freedoms of speech and religion and the right to take part in society and economy. However, there was a reciprocal responsibility between the individual and the State, and individuals had certain responsibilities. Implementing such rights was not easy, especially in rural areas; however there was a gradual implementation of human rights mechanisms around the world as evidenced by the African Human Rights Court. The most important point was to promote interaction between States, civilizations and cultures based on the equality of rights and not the imposition of regional values.

The Drafting Group would address the following issues: a definition and understanding of traditional values, the role of religion and human rights, how to ensure freedom and dignity as a duty of each State while at the same time considering the duties and responsibilities of the individual, and regional aspects of human rights. Dignity, freedom and responsibility were at the basis of all human rights. However because a number of traditions in various countries were an obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights, particularly the rights of women, the Drafting Group should explore how to overcome differences to promote the universality of human rights. In February 2012 an interim document would be presented to indicate the results of the Drafting Group’s work.

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Committee Expert, said that there was specific language in the Human Rights resolution sent to the Advisory Committee concerning the three values identified as traditional - dignity, freedom and responsibility - and how they could promote and protect human rights. There should not be a trade off between traditional values and human rights. An important part of the work would be the conceptual definitions. What was responsibility, by whom and to whom? What was the relationship between values and legal norms as there were expressions of traditional values that were not legal. There was also the relationship between practices and values. It was not necessary to write about the contribution of world civilization to human rights, therefore the Drafting Group should focus its work. For example, would it only examine the positive light of traditional values or also how they might pose obstacles? Mr. Heinz suggested that the Drafting Group pursue an interdisciplinary approach, include vulnerable groups, and consider State reservations which could indicate tensions within and among States.

SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Committee Expert, said there was ambiguity in the definition of responsibility. What was meant by the concept of responsibility as a traditional value of humankind, especially in societies that placed more emphasis on communal values? For example, Asian societies emphasized the role of communities, placing society and the family above oneself and resolving major issues through consensus which differed with a Western tradition where the focus was on individualism. It was important to note that different historical, political, social and cultural contexts in the region required a balance between rights and responsibility.

OBIORA CHINEDU OKAFOR, Committee Expert, said that the topic could be narrowed and restricted to examining the positive values rather than an expansive study of linkages among cultures and human rights. It was an anthropological question rather than legal and it was not necessary to reinvent the work as considerable studies had already been conducted. One caution would be that tradition or culture should not be viewed as static because tradition was dynamic and the work should not provide comfort or aid to limiting the enjoyment of human rights by disadvantaged groups. There were many traditions in Africa that supported human rights and the Drafting Group could highlight some of these traditions.

DHEERUJLALL SEETUSLING, Committee Expert, said the Drafting Group desired to hear from the Russian delegation which proposed this resolution. The Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights had asked certain questions which would be relevant to the Drafting Group, such as to what extent were cultural notions and value systems in accordance with human rights; to what extent was it possible to distinguish between traditional values and traditional practices and was there a common understanding of what constituted traditional values?

CHEN SHIQIU, Committee Expert, said these three values - dignity, freedom and responsibility – could include all the traditional values of mankind. Mr. Chen recommended that the Drafting Group should follow the core issues rather than covering all traditional values. Among the 46 Member States of the Human Rights Council there were different view points on this issue with 14 of them not agreeing on the topic and if the issue was submitted to the 192 Member States, perhaps one third would also have some doubts. Mr. Chen hoped the study could achieve a harmonious result among all Member States.

MONA ZULFICAR, Committee Expert, said that the intention of the mandate was not to reopen the questioning of the universality of human rights. The traditional values of freedom, dignity and responsibility covered all human rights. The Drafting Group should recognize the diversity of cultures, traditions, religions and customary practices but there was a certain important dimension to underscore: the distinction between those traditional practices that were either harmful, such as female genital mutilation, to human rights and those that supported them, such as practices in Sharia law that could empower women. The mandate was more about the lack of effective implementation of human rights treaties around the world. The members of the Drafting Group and the Advisory Committee were encouraged to use their own languages to make the link between positive values and human rights while segregating harmful practices that were inconsistent with human rights.

AHMER BILAL SOOFI, Committee Expert, said the Drafting Group should make not a legal but a sociological and anthropologic determination of the three traditional values of dignity, freedom and responsibility with an emphasis on the positive aspects of those traditions in facilitating human rights law.

ANANTONIA REYES PRADO, Committee Expert, said it was essential to have a critical approach to human rights so that the Drafting Group could find common ground. In human rights there were ethical, legal and political dimensions and this examination of traditional values could help to better understand the ethical aspects of human rights.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Committee Expert, said she had worked for over 20 years as a rapporteur on traditional practices and noted that often misinterpretations of religion or traditional practices had violated human rights. A delicate and subtle approach was required to eliminate prejudices and obstacles to the achievement of human rights. This exercise should be done without preconceived ideas which prevented mutual understanding. There should be an avoidance of condemnation by showing, through education and awareness-raising, what should be done.

CHUNG CHINSUNG, Committee Expert, said there should be no doubts about the universality of human rights but there were some social attitudes under the name of traditional values that led to oppressed or discriminatory attitudes and practices. The report should contain not only a positive review of traditional values but also a critical analysis of prejudices that worked against the promotion of human rights.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on traditional values, said that a general approach to the subject had taken shape but made a point of caution that there should not be an extension of the list of topics. It was important to shed light on the main issues and not peripheral ones.

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Chairperson, said the mandate was not entirely clear and supported an exchange of views with the sponsor of the resolution, the delegation of Russia. There were only three traditional values, dignity, freedom and responsibility, to be covered and therefore was it necessary to consider a broad concept of traditional values and practices?

Poland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union could not support the development of a concept that undercut the universality of human rights. Values were important and should be consistent with human rights law and would always be interpreted differently by various actors. The European Union urged the Advisory Committee to consider the potential risk that cultural relativism posed to the promotion and protection of human rights.

Russia said that the key objective in sponsoring the resolution was the reaffirmation of the universal nature of human rights and not to undermine this principle. A concept discussed during a workshop on this topic included a reciprocal approach to human rights that did not pose standards on people but found existing values that were important to groups in order to use these values to support human rights standards. Human rights standards were primarily based on positive norms and traditions. The question to be answered by the report was why human rights, recognized worldwide, were not universally accepted because there was a clear distinction between recognition and acceptance and the linkage of human rights to traditional values would enhance acceptance. Furthermore, cultural relativism would not undermine human rights norms. What would happen to a society where norms were only enforced by punishment and not by the belief of people? The delegation recognized the need to enforce human rights in legal terms but it was not the only way. Education in human rights should not only focus on norms and standards but also values. There should be a clear distinction between the categories of values, traditions, practices and laws. Values should serve to underpin the laws and help their reinforcement and should not be imposed from State machinery. The issue of responsibility was not unfamiliar to international human rights discourse as there were many notions of responsibility in the law. In the current human rights discourse, traditional rights had a negative, unjust connotation rather than being considered neutral and Russia urged the Drafting Group to address this negative connotation. Other categories, such as equality or solidarity, were not included in the resolution because there was not enough time to cover all traditional values. Freedom, dignity and responsibility were chosen because they were difficult to deny.

Bolivia said that this report would be a real challenge for the Advisory Committee and would broaden its understanding and approach to the issue. Traditional practices could be positive or negative for human rights. Bolivia preferred to use the term practices rather than values because the latter had a positive connotation even though the values could be harmful. The values of indigenous people in Bolivia stressed complimentary between humans and nature which supported the right to water. In Bolivia, traditional values and sayings were mentioned in the Bolivian Constitution and they supported national policies.

Morocco said there was a trend to reduce the debate to negative practices and questioned this because values represented positive ideas and therefore there was no need to deal with negative practices such as female genital mutilation. Traditional values should be considered in terms of strengthening human rights.

The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies was concerned that the concept of traditional values and the politicized manner in which it was being used by some Member States of the Council could be an attack on the universality of international human rights standards. The concept of traditional values within the existing framework of international law, which protected traditional forms of expression, including religion, anchored and circumscribed the observance of tradition within the larger context of rights protections for the individuals. The Advisory Committee should consider the concerns of civil society in conducting this report.

The International Service for Human Rights said that the traditions within which people lived and which framed their understanding of the world were useful and essential for promoting an understanding of and respect for human rights. However, the Drafting Group should distinguish clearly between the ways in which tradition could be used to promote human rights and the ways in which tradition or its invocation could stand in opposition to human rights. Female human rights defenders worked at the grassroots level in communities where they confronted traditional practices and values that challenged both the rights they promoted and their own role as human rights defenders and therefore the Drafting Group should consult widely amongst those who defend human rights in preparing their report.

The International Commission of Jurists said that the content of human rights was determined by international law, not traditional values and noted that traditional values could entail both positive and negative elements. In particular, the traditional value of responsibility could be subject to abuse, as individual rights had often been violated in the name of responsibility to the family or the community. In the preparation of this report, the Advisory Committee should reaffirm the primacy of international human rights law and recognize that traditional values may need to change in order to conform to international human rights standards.

Amnesty International said that it believed that if a better understanding and appreciation of the traditional values of dignity, freedom and responsibility could contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights, this required an understanding of the complexity of the concept of tradition and of how, in many contexts, those who hold or claim authority used their power to impose a definition of the community’s traditional values that supported their hold on or claim to the power, the abuse of that power or denial of accountability for human rights. There was a need for a critical investigation into the origins of values identified as traditional and who stood to benefit by their propagation. Families, communities, educational and other institutes could use their authority to uphold and transmit values that underpinned human rights.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said that non-governmental organizations from all regions of the world had joined together to express serious concerns about this resolution to the Human Rights Council. The Drafting Group should reflect appropriate regional and gender balance and produce a draft of the report at an early stage to ensure adequate opportunities for consultation and input by all stakeholders. There should be a clear articulation in the report of the serious risks inherent in a traditional values approach that could erode minority rights and the rights of those most marginalized and disenfranchised. In international law individuals were rights holders and States were duty-bearers therefore responsibility could only be understood in light of the responsibility of States to promote and protect the human rights of all and to eliminate harmful and discriminatory values, stereotypes and attitudes.

Namibia said that traditional values were important in promoting and protecting human rights and ignoring their positive contribution to human rights would jeopardize the sustainability of the promotion and protection of human rights as morality could not be legislated. For example, in Namibia, children were often taught to be responsible enough to be home before sunset, something that the city of Philadelphia was having problems with as they recently passed a law forbidding children under 18 years old to be in public after 9 p.m. on the weekends. Namibia said that the study should be conducted with an open mind without prejudice against traditional values.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on traditional values, said there were no significant problems or disagreements raised during the discussion on the role of traditional values in promoting human rights. All ideas expressed during the discussion would be included in the report and he thanked all those who took the floor.

Enhancement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights

DHEERUJLALL SEETUSLING, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on international cooperation, said the resolution entrusting this mandate to the Advisory Committee was issued by Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement in 2010. The report reviewed international cooperation on the basis of existing United Nations’ texts, including the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The actors and role players of international cooperation such as States and international institutions were reviewed along with multinationals, trade unions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). There were numerous proposals set forward on the forms of international cooperation including economic, social, judicial, cultural and political cooperation. International cooperation should take the form of a genuine partnership based on equal sovereign rights with reciprocity and the common objective of promoting, protecting and enhancing human rights.

The report offered a number of means for cooperation, such as encouraging States parties to ratify all human rights treaties and eliminate reservations they had entered; providing incentives to States parties to apply human rights treaties internally; and enhancing the preparation of the Universal Periodic Review reports. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had made two voluntary funds operational to assist States parties to submit reports under the Universal Periodic Review. International cooperation among regional bodies was also important and workshops by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had already been conducted. There was a need for regional cooperation to focus on developing common strategies for shared regional problems. There was a need for better cooperation between special procedures, rapporteurs and States parties and NGOs and for strengthening of the treaty body system due to the increase in Optional Protocols. A questionnaire was submitted on international cooperation to which the Drafting Group received a tepid response; another questionnaire with seven questions has been prepared and distributed to the Committee.

The preliminary report on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (A/HRC/AC/7/2) is an update of the working document submitted at the sixth session and aims to facilitate discussion on the basis of input provided. The document incorporates the analytical information in the Rapporteur’s working paper (A/HRC/AC/6/CRP.4) and introduces some new ideas that emerged from the discussions of the Advisory Committee at its sixth session. The report lists basic texts on international cooperation in the field of human rights; the challenges of international cooperation in the field of human rights; and possible future work.

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Committee Expert, said there should be a reference in the report to the right to development to highlight cooperation with donor institutions. The report had focused on political and civil rights but there should also be a consideration of economic and social rights. Mr. Heinz recommended including national human rights institutions as a key factor in cooperation because although by definition these organizations traditionally had a focus on their own countries, they had now expanded to assist the establishment of such institutions in other countries.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Committee Expert, said a gap existed between the recommendations and implementation of human rights which was especially notable in the Committees created from the nine treaties. The Rapporteur should consider how cooperation could be strengthened among United Nations bodies in the monitoring of their recommendations. Concerning the questionnaire, Mr. Kartashkin proposed changes to question 7 so that it would be proposed to all States and would not be limited to certain States that were already engaged in cooperation on human rights.

AHMER BILAL SOOFI, Committee Expert, said that State to State interaction was important and should become more proactive and formalized such as sharing case law in a transparent manner to build capacity. On rights that had already been codified in Conventions and on which there was no debate, then State to State coordination could be formalized. Mr. Soofi recommended using the treaty framework to enhance cooperation.

CHEN SHIQIU, Committee Expert, said that promoting cooperation in the human rights field was a perquisite of expanding human rights. Cooperation among human rights institutions within the United Nations was critical and had not been sufficiently strengthened especially with the limited resources within the United Nations. Practical, action orientated assistance in human rights education planning, personnel training and cooperation to prepare human rights country reports should be provided to developing countries.

The Indian Council of South America said a major disparity existed in the policies of the United Nations, notably the right of indigenous peoples to uphold treaties made with colonial governments. Indigenous nations should be allowed to participate as nations at the World Court for the resolution of treaty conflicts with colonizing governments. A tribunal with enforcement authority should be established at the United Nations to conduct hearings to address treaty conflict between indigenous nations and colonizing governments.

DHEERUJLALL SEETUSLING, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on international cooperation, said in concluding remarks that all statements would be incorporated into the final report. National human rights institutions would also be included as it was one area where cooperation was practiced to promote human rights.

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, noted an agenda change. There would be a private meeting from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, 11 August, followed by a public meeting from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. to continue to consider traditional values and human rights. The Committee would meet in private in the afternoon.

Human Rights and International Solidarity

CHEN SHIQIU, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on international solidarity, presented a preliminary draft paper on human rights and international solidarity. There was no requirement to provide an entire text but only inputs, ideas and suggestions. The following areas were included: the definition of scope, the legal framework, the values and relationship with other human rights instruments, and the promotion and realization to the right to solidarity. The Working Group by the end of October would communicate with one another so as to incorporate all views and by the end of November, Mr. Chen would complete the second draft and distribute it to the Working Group. By February 2012, the final draft of the paper would be completed. In accordance with the mandate given by the Council resolution, there was a need for close cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on this issue and the Working Group had been unable to communicate with the Special Rapporteur and requested assistance in this matter from the Secretariat.

DHEERUJLALL SEETUSLING, Committee Expert, asked the Secretariat what happened to the report made by the previous Special Rapporteur on international solidarity as a new Special Rapporteur had now been appointed.

China said that the Advisory Committee was the think tank of the Human Rights Council and China had always supported the studies provided by the Advisory Committee. The Chinese delegation thanked the Drafting Group on its efforts on international solidarity. Solidarity and responsibility sharing should become the fundamental values of the twenty-first century. The members of the international community should live together in peace, strengthen cooperation and establish equal and mutually beneficial cooperation. In human rights, countries should engage in constructive dialogue and cooperation to further the healthy development of the course of human rights in the world.

CHEN SHIQIU, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on International Solidarity, said in concluding remarks that this subject was important and that various opinions existed. At today’s meeting perhaps individuals were not fully prepared and he stressed that before finalizing the draft of the report the door was open to experts, Governments or non-governmental organizations that were all welcome to provide further comments. Mr. Chen suggested that all proposals should be sent first to the Secretariat which would then forward these comments to the Drafting Group.

MONA ZULFICAR, Committee Expert, asked why there were two separate mandates, one for international cooperation and the other for international solidarity, because these two notions were mutually reinforcing and linked together. She suggested that they should be addressed together.

CHUNG CHINSUNG, Committee Expert, said that the report should elaborate third generation human rights, such as the rights to development, environment and peace that required international solidarity in order to achieve support among Member States. There could also be a focus on the role of non-State actors in human rights. The concept note emphasized too much the legal aspect and would prefer an incorporation of not only best practices in solidarity but how international solidarity could be implemented on a practical basis.

DHEERUJLALL SEETUSLING, Committee Expert, said there were two different procedures and processes being followed for the topics.

ANANTONIA REYES PRADO, Committee Expert, said that she now understood that the two subjects were approached differently not because of two different concepts but because of the different processes being followed for each.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Committee Expert, asked whether or not the Committee was to be subordinate to the Special Rapporteur and said it raised questions about the Committee’s competence. Mr. Kartashkin said that when the Human Rights Council instructed the Committee to consult with an Independent Expert, there should be further clarification and consultations on this process.

MONA ZULFICAR, Committee Expert, said her intervention had asked if there was any conceptual basis for handling the two issues separately when it would be logical and enabling to group these two issues together. Ms. Zulficar said it was the Advisory Committee’s duty to rationalize requests from the Human Rights Council and proposed that her colleagues could make one working group rather than two to make the best use of limited resources.

DHEERUJLALL SEETUSLING, Committee Expert, said it would be better to address procedures in a private meeting and that it was too late to merge the two groups. There was nothing debasing in providing inputs into a draft declaration.

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, said there was no issue of subordination and on the contrary there was a certain usefulness and rationality in having the Advisory Committee contribute to topics studied by Rapporteurs and Independent Experts as this increased interaction with the Advisory Committee and other bodies. Mr. Huseynov said he had not seen any overlap between the two topics because cooperation was focused on enhancement and the other subject of solidarity had a different conceptual and legal basis as the intention of the Drafting Group was to issue a declaration on the subject. As this request was put forward two sessions ago it was now too late to make changes to the process of work and Mr. Huseynov encouraged the Drafting Group to continue to meet the separate requests of the mandate.

CHUNG CHINSUNG, Committee Expert, said that the mandate of the Drafting Group on international solidarity was clear and limited, which was only to provide inputs to the Independent Expert’s statement and suggested disbanding the Drafting Group once the inputs were complete in February.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Committee Expert, said that if the United Nations was to avoid duplication of work then perhaps the Advisory Committee should hold talks with the President of the Human Rights Council to ensure that the Committee was not engaged in duplicating the work of the Independent Expert.

CHEN SHIQIU, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on international solidarity, said that he appreciated all the specific recommendations made on his paper and noted the different points that were raised by others. International cooperation was about strengthening international cooperation in the field of human rights which was given solely to the Advisory Committee. Concerning international solidarity, this topic was primarily the domain of the Independent Expert and the Committee was only asked to provide inputs and assistance to the Special Rapporteur on his work and it would not duplicate his work.


For use of the information media; not an official record

AC11/013E