ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON DRAFT DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this afternoon continued its discussion on a draft declaration on human rights education and training, as mandated to it by the Human Rights Council.
Emmanuel Decaux, Rapporteur of the drafting group on the declaration, in concluding remarks, said when discussing human rights and human rights education, many challenges were encountered, and this was therefore a very valuable discussion. The question of who the declaration was for had to be addressed - whether it was for the general public or for States. Each State had a tradition of education and human rights. States were very diverse, and this had to be dealt with, as did the diversity of national players and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and how they dealt with education. In the midst of all this diversity, an encouraging factor was that all mentioned the importance of human rights in practice.

Among issues raised by other speakers, including States and NGOs, was that human rights education and training were invaluable tools for enshrining the values of dignity, freedom, equality and justice, values that underpinned human rights as they affected the daily lives of all across the planet. Common values like freedom and equality were fundamental and came under the tolerance umbrella, which embodied respect for peace, dignity and human rights. A global common value system had to be allowed to flourish. Human rights education signified a new kind of governance based on human rights within educational policies for both policy makers and civil society.

In the process of improvement of the current draft, aspects on definition and principles should be more appropriately included. Each individual young person upholding human rights and joining with others could create a line of networks protecting and promoting human rights that would eventually permeate the entire globe: the role of youth should be included as a substantive factor promoting human rights education and training. There was room for further refining the text - a concise and accessible text was what was required by all, but it should be comprehensive and address all aspects of human rights education and training.

Speaking this afternoon was the Philippines. Also speaking was the Advisory Council of Human Rights of Morocco, as well as the International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, Soka Gakkai International, Amnesty International, New Humanity, European Disability Forum, Indian Council of South America and World Peace Council.

The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will be at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 26 January, when it will consider the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members and the draft set of guidelines thereon.

Discussion on Draft Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training

AMINA LEMRINI, of Advisory Council of Human Rights of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the International Coordinating Committee of Institutions for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, said like the institutionalisation of human rights through policies and legislation, human rights education and training were invaluable tools for enshrining the values of dignity, freedom, equality and justice, values that underpinned human rights as they affected the daily lives of all across the planet. The title should be changed to Complementary Provisions, which could allow for making a very important point, as the current phraseology disassociated the section. As for national human rights institutions, they had status, mandate and prerogatives that were very important in the human rights culture. They would be required to facilitate, develop and encourage synergies between the different human rights mechanisms to monitor application of human rights programmes and projects, among others.

ALFRED FERNANDEZ, of International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education (OIDEL), in a joint statement with Soka Gakkai International, said the new draft of the Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training was very comprehensive. Human rights education was now recognized as a full human right. It had also been recognized that all rights were inextricably linked. Unfortunately, human rights education and training had not yet seen significant political will. The draft declaration could be improved. It would be crucial to include human rights education in education in general and to recognize the link between cultural and religious diversity in that regard. If trainers were not trained all efforts in that regard would have been in vain. Parents were at the forefront of their children’s education. Human rights brought together global philosophies and so both the State and individuals had to highlight that fact. 2010 was the year for the coming together of cultures. Common values like freedom and equality were fundamental and came under the tolerance umbrella, which embodied respect for peace, dignity and human rights. A global common value system had to be allowed to flourish. Human rights education signified a new kind of governance based on human rights within educational policies for both policy makers and civil society. The principle of participation was referred to in the draft and implied giving schools autonomy.

KAZUNARI FUJII, of Soka Gakkai International, in a joint statement with International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education (OIDEL), said it was good that the draft contained qualitative input by a range of stakeholders. The current draft was a substantive improvement, but in order to improve it further, there were concerns to be met. The first section required more orderly paragraphs and they should be better clustered to follow similar topics. In the process of improvement of the current draft, aspects on definition and principles should be more appropriately included. Human rights education and training could be carried out in a variety of forms, many of which did not require a school, and thus the text should be reviewed in this regard. In light of reality, paragraphs should be concerned with school education, whether formal or informal, as well as outside school education. Quality education required human rights and training. With regards to the "rights-based approach", the definition should stipulate that this included both the right to receive and the right to provide human rights education and training. The role of youth should be added to the text. Young people held the key to humanising society, and this included all human rights issues. Each individual young person upholding human rights and joining with others could create a line of networks protecting and promoting human rights that would eventually permeate the entire globe. The role of youth should be included as a substantive factor promoting human rights education and training.

AURORA SNEH, of Amnesty International, said that human rights education prevented human rights violations. The draft declaration was a welcome initiative that provided guidelines for implementation. With regard to education, the declaration had to build on existing human rights law by ensuring that education was appropriate to combat discrimination. Definitions had to be inclusive yet flexible enough for additions and modifications. The declaration had to distinguish between human rights education and training. That had to empower people and provide them with tools to act on issues that impacted their lives. Human rights content was a crucial component to people’s lives and realities. Human rights education had to be about teaching and learning. Amnesty International welcomed States’ measures to provide human rights education to their citizens and to other state agents such as educators and trainers. Amnesty International encouraged adopting stronger language to support human rights educators that were faced with all sorts of threats. It noted the broad scope of the draft to reflect many consultative comments. Paragraphs had to be more consistent. The Human Rights Council was a crucial body in developing and finalizing the declaration. Amnesty International supported the Advisory Committee’s efforts and said that timely translations of the draft declaration were crucial in ensuring full participation.

JORGE M. DIAS FERREIRA, of New Humanity, said the effort of the drafters to clarify the notion of education and training in the field of human rights was commendable. It was important to stress the interdependence between the right to education and the right to human rights education. Education was an inherent human right, and an indispensable means for achieving all human rights. Education in human rights was a basic necessity in education and training for people, and should be included in the text. There were close links between rights and duties in the context of education. The principle of brotherhood created a duty, and its implementation was an essential element in dealing with human rights education. In the educational field, rights and duties were part and parcel of the same thing - even at a very early age it was necessary to teach responsibilities and duties that were necessary in living in society.

ESTEBAN TROMEL, of European Disability Forum, speaking on behalf of the European Disability Alliance, noted that the draft declaration on human rights education and training made no mention of people with disabilities. They urged the Human Rights Council to include them. Although the declaration’s text had to be succinct, the absence of references to people with disabilities would lead to them being excluded in human rights education and training.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said the rights of indigenous peoples stemmed from inherent rights, which were stated without limitations in the law of nations and the rights of man. This must include the full impression that indigenous peoples were fully recognised within the family of man as nations and peoples who had the right to their territory, resources, and the right to self-determination. There must be a distinction between purely international law obligations and domestic law obligations to distinguish the rights of indigenous peoples as it pertained to their collective rights as stakeholders to harness their right to self-determination.

DALE AWASIS , of Indian Council of South America, said under the draft declaration on human rights education and training, in article six, there was a general reference to the need to have a goal to eliminate the cause of exclusion or marginalisation. Draft paragraph seven made specific reference to indigenous peoples and their specific needs. These two draft articles should be brought together, as the lack of educational materials for non-indigenous settlers in indigenous territories was leading to indigenous peoples being excluded within their own territories, and their collective rights were being undermined by the settlers' definitions and use of their legal system to marginalise indigenous people. States were attempting to redefine their definitions to impede the treaty obligations and other constitutional obligations by using their laws and legal systems to undermine and evade their legal obligations. It was the lack of education on indigenous rights that was leading to discrimination.

LAZARO PARY, of World Peace Council, said that first and foremost, man had to ensure that he had food, clothing and access to shelter. The right to education in general and within human rights in particular had to be addressed by developing countries. The right of indigenous people to education had become subject to the perils of the market economy and globalization. That problem could not just content itself by virtue of existing within international instruments. The privatization of education could not be ignored. It was afflicting the most vulnerable groups including indigenous groups, pushing them towards poverty, exodus and widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The results of private education had been painful for indigenous peoples. The goal of education could not be to set out on short term training and human rights gaols. Nor could it be conducted like a private enterprise. It had to give people dignity, bolster their capacity in the world, and move them towards liberation from oppression by enhancing their intellectual tools. It had to promote and inculcate respect for nature, thus promoting a deep relationship between man and earth. Indigenous people had the right to all levels of education. States had not respected those principles. In that sense, he hoped that the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council would support the implementation of the declaration on their behalf.

JESUS ENRIQUE G. GARCIA II (Philippines) said the concept of progressive realisation of the right to education and human rights education should be further expanded in the text, using as a model the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which said that States should use international cooperation and progressive realisation to achieve these rights. This was important for developing countries, due to resource constraints. Language on national human rights institutions should be strengthened. The issue of translation could be a challenge as many concepts in the original French were not sufficiently covered in the English version. There was room for further refining the text - a concise and accessible text was what was required by all, but it should be comprehensive and address all aspects of human rights education and training.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Committee Member and Rapporteur of the Drafting Group, said he had found that so many people had been involved in the discussion and this was a very encouraging sign and an important opportunity. When discussing human rights and human rights education, many challenges were encountered, and this was therefore a very valuable discussion. He had noted all proposals, and had been very encouraged by everything said. The proposals to merge certain concepts had been noted. There were also proposals for additions, which he had noted. There were problems both with repetition and also with watering down the text. The question of who the Declaration was for had to be addressed - whether it was for the general public or for States. Each State had a tradition of education and human rights. States were very diverse, and this had to be dealt with, as did the diversity of national players and non-governmental organizations and how they dealt with education. In the midst of all this diversity, an encouraging factor was that all mentioned the importance of human rights in practice.

The Human Rights Council itself took the view that human rights education was particularly important, Mr. Decaux said. Questions had also been asked about the legal and judicial basis on which work was done - all was rights-based. There were many other texts which could be consulted for terminology, language, and internationally-agreed concepts. It could be true to say that not enough emphasis had been placed on the conventional concept of education, primary, secondary, and so on. This had maybe been done implicitly, but the linkage between the plan and how all would work in practice needed to be made explicit. With regards to the method to be followed from here on, there was a certain amount of time left to continue the work. However, there were certain deadlines, and the momentum and impetus of the project had to continue in order to come up with a solid and precise result. The discussion showed that there was a need to stand back and look at things, and this was a complex issue. Concepts of education had moved from the traditional top-down process to horizontal networks - these were the future, and this was something that was already very much present in many countries. The draft was supposed to be generally applicable. Existing mechanisms should really focus on human rights education, highlighting it, and should not impose new obligations.


For use of the information media; not an official record

AC10/003E