HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPENS SEVENTH SESSION

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee today opened its seventh session, hearing statements from the President of the Human Rights Council and the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Committee then elected its bureau, discussed and adopted its agenda and programme of work for the current session and took up the third item on its agenda, namely requests addressed to the Advisory Committee stemming from the Human Rights Council resolutions: the draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace.

Laura Dupuy-Lasserre, President of the Human Rights Council, said that the General Assembly at the end of 2010 had taken note of the main principles and guidelines prepared by this Committee on the end of discrimination against people with leprosy, which was a good example of cooperation between the Committee and the Human Rights Council on the protection of human rights. Future areas of work would be the right to food, the right of peoples to peace and to solidarity, and how to better understand and appreciate the traditional values of dignity to preserve human rights on which a workshop was organised last year. Security, peace, democracy and human rights were mutually reinforcing and Ms. Dupuy-Lasserre stressed that national security and human security could not be seen as two separate concepts.

Kyung-Wha Kang, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, noted that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights supported the recently concluded first review of the Human Rights Council which constituted a timely opportunity to collectively reflect on what was needed to make the work and functioning of the Council more effective. The Office would support the newly established Council Task Force mandated to identify concrete recommendations on Secretariat services, the use of information technology and accessibility for persons with disabilities. Ms. Kang said that as the Council’s think tank the Advisory Committee should provide thematic expertise on a number of identified issues and appealed to the members of the Human Rights Council to strengthen collaboration with the Advisory Committee with more requests for advice, research and study.

Latif Huseynov was elected as the new Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. The Committee then proceeded to the election of the following new officers: as Rappporteur Chinsung Chung, as Vice-Chairperson Anantonia Reyes Prado, as Vice-Chairperson Jean Ziegler and as Vice-Chairperson Mona Zulficar.

The Committee took up the draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace. Wolfgang S. Heinz, Committee Expert and Rapporteur of the Drafting Group, explained that a questionnaire prepared by the Advisory Committee was sent by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to all relevant stakeholders and responses were received from eight Member States, the European Union and the Holy See, as well as from three international organizations and 24 non-governmental organizations; the deadline for responses was extended. In responses to the questionnaire, there was considerable support for the basic approach and standards proposed by the Committee along with certain criticisms and suggestions to change the proposed standards and to add others.

The following Experts of the Advisory Committee took the floor: Vladimir Kartashkin, Latif Huseynov, Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Mona Zulficar, Dheerujlall Seetulsing, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Shigeki Sakamoto, Chen Shiqiu, Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, and Jose Antonio Bengoa Cabello.

Speaking this afternoon were the following Member States: the United States, Bolivia, Pakistan, Cuba, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Algeria and Morocco. A member of the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries took the floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: International Association of Peace Messengers Cities, International Society for Human Rights, Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Conscience and Peace Tax International and the Indian Council of South America.

The Advisory Committee observed a minute of silence for all victims of human rights violations around the world.

The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday, 9 August at 11 a.m., when it is scheduled to discuss follow-up to the report on the right to food.

Opening Statements

KYUNG-WHA KANG, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in opening remarks welcomed the newly elected members of the Advisory Committee, Ms. Laurence Boission de Chazournes (France), Mr. Obiora Chinedu Okafor (Nigeria), Ms. Anantonia Reyes Prado (Guatemala) and Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi (Pakistan) and regretted that Ms. Purificacion Quisumbing, the outgoing Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, would not be able to attend the present session of the Committee.

LAURA DUPUY-LASSERRE, President of the Human Rights Council, said that the General Assembly at the end of 2010 had taken note of the main principles and guidelines prepared by this Committee on the end of discrimination against people with leprosy, which was a good example of cooperation between the Committee and the Human Rights Council on the protection of human rights. Future areas of work would be the right to food, the right to peoples to peace and to solidarity, and how to better understand and appreciate the traditional values of dignity to preserve human rights on which a workshop was organised last year. Security, peace, democracy and human rights were mutually reinforcing and Ms. Dupuy-Lasserre stressed that national security and human security could not be seen as two separate concepts. National security must never run counter to fundamental human rights and freedoms. Concerning the right to food, 80 per cent of people suffering from hunger lived in rural areas and 70 per cent of them were women and the Advisory Committee was working on this subject and would present a report to the Human Rights Council in 2011 on this issue with a focus on access to water and the impact on children. The situation of the poor living in urban contexts, especially concerning women and children, were also a critical area. The need to strengthen international cooperation in human rights was a key theme along with integration with regional human rights mechanisms. In 2010 and 2011, the Human Rights Council’s review process and the dialogue between actors and the Council would continue to build on the rich ideas and analysis of the ideas in the review process. There was a recognized need to strengthen the relations between the Council with this Committee with more systematic interactions including seminars, panels and working groups. The Committee’s revised agenda with its first annual session after the March Council should improve this interaction. Ms. Dupuy-Lasserrre recommended that the Advisory Committee conduct more work between Human Rights Council sessions and reach results which would be implementation based.

Concerning recent work of the Human Rights Council, the Council had adopted the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and proposed the work of panels to examine the issues of victims of terrorism and the diversity of religions and beliefs, and discrimination based on sex and gender. In sessions 16 and 17 the Council adopted 40 recommendations and 20 decisions. Ms. Dupuy-Lasserre said that the Advisory Committee had enriched the work of the Human Rights Council and encouraged all delegations to formally and informally be involved in the work of the Committee.

KYUNG-WHA KANG, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, reiterated the commitment of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to support the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary bodies and mechanisms. Strengthening human rights mechanisms and the progressive development of international human rights laws was one of the six thematic priorities of the High Commissioner. The substantial reform of the United Nations human rights system over the past five years represented a significant step forward towards a more effective protection and promotion of human rights, upon which the United Nations would continue to build by ensuring further coherence and consistency of the system. The Office of the High Commissioner had supported the recently concluded first review of the Human Rights Council which constituted a timely opportunity to collectively reflect on what was needed to make the work and functioning of the Council more effective. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would support the newly established Council Task Force mandated to identify concrete recommendations on Secretariat services, the use of information technology, and accessibility for persons with disabilities.

As the Council’s think tank the Advisory Committee should provide thematic expertise on a number of identified issues, Ms. Kang said. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would contribute to the dissemination of standards, including principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members as developed by this Committee. In addition the Office of the High Commissioner would continue to advocate for greater priority to be given to the range of neglected diseases and to the development of integrated strategies addressing discrimination against those affected by them.

Ms. Kang said that in the area of discrimination in the context of the right to food, over the next few months, the Committee would finalise a study on ways and means to further advance the rights of people working in rural areas, including women, in particular smallholders. The Committee had identified the expropriation of land, forced evictions and displacement amongst the main causes of discrimination and vulnerability of people working in rural areas. The Office of the High Commissioner had carried out work on land-related issues, especially through its field presences. A three day consultation on the theme of land and human rights was organised last November to map out activities, brainstorm on normative challenges and discuss various opinions on land and human rights.

The Committee would also initiate work on a study on how a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values of dignity, freedom and responsibility could contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights, building on the workshop organised by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 4 October 2010. The High Commissioner in her opening statement to the workshop affirmed that there was no need to choose between the twin imperatives of being culturally sensitive on the one hand, and respectful of human rights on the other. The High Commissioner strongly encouraged the workshop participants to focus on traditional values underpinning human rights, while warning against those traditional values which were in conflict with them.

The Human Rights Council had also requested the Advisory Committee to contribute to the elaboration by the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity of a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity. Potential areas of focus, best practices, and emerging approaches in international cooperation were exemplified and were now expected to be taken forward by the newly appointed Independent Expert.

Ms. Kang appealed to the members of the Human Rights Council to strengthen collaboration with the Advisory Committee and said that in order for the Committee to be in a position to play its think-tank role it clearly needed to be seized with more requests for advice, research and study. There were numerous issues in contemporary international human rights law which remained insufficiently clarified and for which a strong involvement of the Advisory Committee would be advisable.

Election of Officers

VLADIMIR KARATASIHKN, Advisory Committee member, said the choice of a Chairperson would determine the quality of the work of the Advisory Council and recommended Professor Latif Huseynov as Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. Following a secondment of the motion, Mr. Huseynov was duly elected.

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, said he hoped the current seventh session would be a success and had no doubt that all participants would make their contribution to achieve this goal. Mr. Huseynov said he would work to further strengthen the competence and authority of the Committee by having the Committee function as an effective think tank not strictly bound by formalistic procedures and recommended that members of the Committee submit proposals for work that dealt with human rights.

The Committee proceeded to the election of the three vice chairpersons and the rapporteur.
Rappportuer Ms. Chinsung Chung (Republic of Korea - 2013);
Vice-President Ms. Anantonia Reyes Prado (Guatemala – 2013);
Vice-President M. Jean Ziegler (Switzerland - 2012);
Vice-President Ms. Mona Zulficar (Egypt - 2013).

Adoption of Agenda

The Committee adopted its agenda and held a minute of silence for human rights defenders and victims around the world.

LATIF HUSEYNOV, Chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, said that for the twentieth session of the Human Rights Council to be held in June 2012, the Advisory Committee would be expected to adopt a declaration on the right of peoples to peace. For the twenty-first session of the Council in September 2012, the Committee would be required to submit a new study on the role of traditional values on the promotion of human rights. The Chairperson asked for input from members of the Committee concerning the draft programme of work.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said he hoped that the Committee would have enough time to listen to many of the non-governmental organizations and other representatives present today.

The draft timetable was then adopted.

Requests Addressed to the Advisory Committee from the Human Rights Council Resolutions: the Right of Peoples to Peace

WOLFGANG S. HEINZ, Rapporteur of the Drafting Group, said a questionnaire prepared by the Advisory Committee was sent by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to all relevant stakeholders, as envisaged in the Human Rights Council resolution 14/3. Responses were received from eight Member States, the European Union and the Holy See, as well as from three international organizations and 24 non-governmental organizations and the deadline for responses was extended. In responses to the questionnaire, there was considerable support for the basic approach and standards proposed by the Committee along with certain criticisms and suggestions to change the proposed standards and to add others.

In the first progress report of March last year, the Advisory Committee had listed more than 40 different standards to assist discussions and to clarify the focus on priorities including a discussion of hard and soft law and justification for these standards. A declaration for the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly clearly could not accommodate all the standards mentioned in the first progress report but many were taken up in the draft declaration. The draft declaration followed the progress report and suggested 13 standards plus article 14 dealing with implementation and monitoring. The difference between the original declaration, which had a strong focus on the collective dimension and the new draft declaration was its focus on the individual dimension on the human right to peace, an important differentiation which reflected the actual situation. There were also two new standards regarding freedom of thought, conscience, expression and religion in article 10, and refugees and migrants in article 13. The basic approach was to keep the declaration short, five pages, and succinct, rather than adding more human rights which were already defined in the nine human rights conventions. The report focused on standards related to international peace and security as core standards and suggested a body, after the resolution was accepted, to continue an ongoing discussion on the rights of people to peace rather than to stop at the draft resolution. The Committee felt that the right of peoples to peace required more than just a declaration, therefore, the final article of the draft declaration included a proposal made to the Human Rights Council to set up a mechanism to continue the discussion on and monitoring of the human right to peace.

The progress report of the Drafting Group on the right of peoples to peace (A/HRC/AC/7/3)
includes in its annex the Draft Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace. The declaration said peoples and individuals have a human right to peace. This right is universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. States shall urgently pursue the renunciation of the use or threat of use of force in international relations, particularly the elimination of nuclear weapons. Everyone has the right to human security, which includes freedom from fear and from want, all constituting elements of positive peace.

MONA ZULFICAR, Committee Expert, said that she thanked all those who had responded to the questionnaire, including the many non-governmental organizations that were the motivating power during the last years for the human right to peace. Although the human right to peace was the subject of debate among States parties and various interested groups, at the end it should be recognised and codified as an enabling right for all human rights. The Committee was open to all consultations, ideas and recommendations on this human right and would continue to welcome all contributions and encouraged States parties to offer their contributions and opinions. There was more recognition in the draft report for the right of the individual to peace and peaceful expression, which was demonstrated by the recent revolution in Egypt to initiate change in a claim for human dignity, freedom, democracy and social justice. Implementation and monitoring was discussed among the Drafting Group and was still open for discussion; provisions and proposals for a monitoring mechanism were in the early stages and the Committee hoped that a monitoring mechanism would play a key role to help realize the human rights of men, women and children over the world.

DHEERUJLALL SEETULSING, Committee Expert, asked if the questionnaire was being retransmitted and said he had reservations about the Committee recommending that the Human Rights Council establish another treaty body on the basis of a declaration, especially as the resolution had not commanded unanimity and noting the serious division at the level of the Human Rights Council. Mr. Seetulsing recommended adopting a softer approach to the Advisory Committee’s recommendation.

AHMER BILAL SOOFI, Committee Expert, asked if the draft resolution was viewed as constitutive or declarative, was it creating a human right to peace or declaring a human right to peace. There was concern that the monitoring body might overlap with the jurisdiction of existing statutes, treaties and conventions. The nature and character of the draft resolution in comparison to the codification of existing human rights instruments lacked specifics and therefore its implementation framework raised concerns.

SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Committee Expert, said the international human rights of men should be guaranteed by a global order of justice. All violations of these rights must be taken up by the international community, like States which used force against their populations.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Committee Expert, noted that a practical orientation for the application of this declaration was missing and recommended also that the right of individuals to refuse to serve in the armed forces should be included in the resolution.

SHIQIU CHEN, Committee Expert, said there was concern that the draft declaration had no binding force and asked what mechanism would be used to monitor the human right to peace. The declaration itself must carry a monitoring mechanism with an appropriate body. That should include a focus on how to prevent wars and remove the spread of wars, which must be translated into specific obligations while Article 14 should be an obligation to require all Governments to commit themselves to solving international disputes by peaceful means rather than through war and to ban the dissemination of war propaganda.

OBIORA CHINEDU OKAFOR, Committee Expert, said concerning Article 14 for the recommendation of some type of monitoring or follow-up by the Human Rights Council, even without this separate monitoring body, the Council itself could still monitor the implementation of the declaration through existing mechanisms, including adding it as a standard in the Universal Periodic Review.

LAURENCE BOISSON DE CHAZOURNES, Committee Expert, said that among the main human rights principles was the matter of the respect of human rights. The link between the right to peace and the respect for human rights was not sufficiently highlighted in the draft resolution and these intrinsic links should be underlined in article 1. Every State had the duty and responsibility to prevent conflicts and there should be a greater emphasis on mechanisms to prevent the emergence of conflicts. Proscribing a right to peace should guarantee a right to peace. All States had an obligation to cooperate with one another to eliminate sources of conflict and dispute. Negative peace, positive peace, structural peace should all be linked together in the context of this declaration.

A member of the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries said that there was a new phenomena on the privatisation of war as evidenced in Afghanistan and Iraq which should be considered in the right of people to peace. War was presently outsourced to the private sector initiating a process that harked back to the Middle Ages. Article 6 which dealt with private security and military contractors should include that for those activities that could be outsourced, States should establish an international regime. States and the United Nations had the fundamental responsibilities to preserve peace. Any military action outside the framework of the United Nations Charter would be unacceptable and preventive wars would constitute a crime against peace.

The United States had significant concerns about many of the report’s proposed standards, including that key concepts were undefined or not sufficiently defined; standards had inappropriately assigned human rights to groups or peoples rather than to individuals; standards had purported to turn a goal of the entire human rights system into a free standing right; and that standards had attempted to treat issues addressed in other areas, such as the environment and security as human rights issues. The United States said that the standards in the draft declaration were duplicative of other instruments or mechanisms and offered no significant prospect of improved promotion of these rights. Bolivia supported the declaration although it had a number of observations which would be communicated in writing, including the lack of inclusion of indigenous people in the text. Cuba said that peace was a key precondition for human rights and the right to life and recommended a more detailed analysis of Article 2 on human security which it feared could be manipulated to threaten the sovereignty and internal integrity of individual States.

Pakistan said that it attached great importance to peoples’ right to peace. It said that this right could be realised by indentifying and addressing the root causes of issues that continued to thwart international peace and security, by respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States and by refraining from acting in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. The Pakistani delegation felt that the concept of responsibility to protect as outlined in Article 2.3 of the draft text was premature. Pakistan was surprised that there was no reference in the draft text to foreign occupation, religious intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization of and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief. Pakistan would shortly complete and submit the questionnaire. Costa Rica said that it agreed with the importance for Member States to respond to the questionnaire and urged all States parties to complete them. The right to peace was the backdrop of the United Nations Charter which came from the awful experiences of humanity at the time. The draft declaration which created a new vision for international peace could not be done overnight and there needed to be a total involvement of Member States which would not be polarized. Costa Rica said that the presence of wars and the increase in war budgets against the background of a famine that was occurring in the Horn of Africa was a critical issue. Over 60 years ago Costa Rica boldly abolished its army in favour of social expenditure and there was no reason why the international community could not also be bold in the area of the right of peoples to peace.

Algeria said the draft resolution should contain a balance between the collective and individual right of peoples to peace. Algeria said that a general reference to the United Nations Charter should be included and concerning Article 3 and the responsibility to protect, the resolution should be in line with the current discussions in the General Assembly and foreign occupation should be added in Article 12 and in Article 13, there should be other categories directly affected by the right to peace such as internally displaced people and people living under foreign occupation.
Uruguay said that in Article 2, national security and human security were referred to as separate concepts and suggested that these concepts should be linked in the text. Uruguay asked if the members of the drafting group could explain how they would achieve the fair distribution of natural resources? Morocco said that the draft text should include a better reflection of the values of dialogue, tolerance of acceptance of other cultures, peaceful settlement of disputes and raising awareness of other cultures in an effort to promote peace. Morocco emphasized the role of education in promoting the right of peoples to peace.

Peace Messengers Cities recommended the establishment of an open ending working group that would continue the work and codification of the human right to peace. The Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights said that the Japanese High Court found that the right to live in peace was a human right and would like to propose a new paragraph on peace zones to Article 3 of the draft declaration on disarmament as the declaration should include the right of peoples to make a peace zone in peace time into international human rights laws. The International Association of Democratic Lawyers said that the codification of the right to peace was critical and suggested that each State should do more for peace to realise international security and noted that Japan suffered from the presence of United States military forces on their territory and called the attention of the Advisory Council to the statement in the Santiago Declaration on the phasing out of military presences and disarmament.

Conscience and Peace Tax International said that the first article now incorporated a reference to the human right to peace which should be the foundation stone of the declaration. Conscientious objection to military service was now recognized by the Human Rights Committee as inherent in the freedom of thought conscience and religion. The Indian Council of South America said that the Advisory Committee could strengthen the document by considering the historical links to the right of peoples to peace.

JOSE ANTONIO BENGOA CABELLO, Committee Expert, said that this was the first time that there were so many non-governmental organizations looking into this issue. Mr. Bengoa said that the question of the follow up mechanism was critical and recommended that the Santiago Declaration be copied and distributed in the room so that all delegations would understand its concepts and be able to use it as a tool in completing the work. The agenda for the Advisory Council this week was very full and he recommended that there should be more time for the drafting committee to meet so that the work could be completed by the end of the week.

WOLFGANG S. HEINZ, Rapporteur of the Drafting Group, in response to the discussion, said that there was no reason to depart from the standard procedure which included a hearing of the first round of proposals and then there would be a revised version for the end of February to complete the work, as mandated by the Human Rights Council. However, there would be some lunch group meetings of the Working Group during this session but with so many conflicting views there was no need to rush the job in three days. Mr. Heinz stressed that the document was a declaration and not a convention because it was an expression of political will and it would be up to Member States to decide if they would want to further develop the declaration into a convention. Mr. Heinz said that articles 7 and 5 had mentioned war propaganda which was a key concern mentioned in the meeting today. Indigenous people were referred to in the draft declaration under the heading of vulnerable groups. Concerning the critical remarks of the United States, Mr. Heinz said that the language on human rights and peace education had come from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Mr. Heinz noted that the United States had recently changed its position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which included both individual and collective dimensions. Concerning monitoring, the disparity in opinion reflected the different positions in the Human Rights Council on this issue and there should be a continuation of this discussion. The Advisory Committee could not just present ideas about peace but should always consider what would be justified in present international law.

In concluding remarks, the Chairperson thanked all participants, particularly those from civil society who provided significant input into the work being conducted by the Advisory Committee. The Chairperson noted the difficult task that Professor Heinz had to incorporate the numerous interventions, which were sometimes conflicting.

For use of the information media; not an official record

AC11/011E