ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES OTHER COUNCIL REQUESTS, INCLUDING INTEGRATION OF GENDER PERSPECTIVE AND PERSPECTIVE OF DISABLED PERSONS

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning discussed remaining requests stemming from the Human Rights Council, including on the integration of a gender perspective in the Committee’s mandate; the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; the integration of the perspective of persons with disabilities; and on human rights and international solidarity.

In the discussion on human rights of women and the integration of a gender perspective, Committee Experts proposed that the Committee draft a proposal to the Council requesting the mandate to carry out a study on the rights of peasants and rural populations, and also on the rights of rural women. A study on gender mainstreaming had already been submitted to the Council, and the Council had not really scrutinized the substance of the Advisory Committee’s proposal yet. The President of the Council had said that that issue could be taken up during the Council’s next session. Experts discussed how the Advisory Committee could react to that.

Addressing the issue of the perspective of persons with disabilities, Committee Experts highlighted that the Convention on Persons with Disabilities still had not been ratified by half of the States signatories. The rate of ratification had been so low because, if they ratified the Convention, countries had to spend large amounts of money to implement its provisions. Experts suggested that they carry out a study on the difficulties with ratification and its consequences. An Expert also pointed out two issues that could be analysed further: the situation of disabled people during natural disasters, including those who became disabled due to natural disasters; and whether there was a distinction to be made between the elderly and disabled persons or whether they were part of the same group.

With regard to the Council request that the Advisory Committee prepare inputs for a draft declaration on the right of people to international solidarity, Committee members noted that the concept of international solidarity covered the areas of development cooperation and international cooperation. The focus for their input should be on development cooperation. Several Experts pointed out that there was a lack of conceptual clarity with regard to the principle of international solidarity. Sometimes it was treated as an established principle, and at other times as an emerging one. Solidarity was a moral obligation, not a legal one, an Expert pointed out; the pursuit of establishing international solidarity in the field of international law was therefore not an easy task. It was still an important discussion to undertake, an Expert noted: what was going on currently in the Human Rights Council Special Session on Haiti should also be regarded as a discussion on international solidarity. It was proposed that the Advisory Committee create a working group on the subject of human rights and international solidarity.

On the issue of the promotion of a democratic and equitable order, it was noted that the Committee Expert tasked with preparing a paper on the subject had not been able to attend the session and had not sent a document on the subject. A representative from the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law, speaking on this topic, observed that peace was also linked to human rights and international solidarity. Several experts had considered the right to peace as an emerging right. An open-ended working-group should be created on the issue.

Committee Members speaking in the discussion this morning were Halima Embarek Warzazi; Mona Zulficar; Dheerujlall Seetulsingh; Emmanuel Decaux; Vladimir Kartashkin; Wolfgang Stefan Heinz; Shiqiu Chen; Shigeki Sakamoto; and Chinsung Chung.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 10 a.m. on Friday, 29 January, when the Advisory Committee will start taking action on its draft recommendations.

Discussion on Other Requests Stemming from the Human Rights Council

Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective in the Work of the Committee

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Chairperson, introducing the issue of the human rights of women, noted that, at the United Nations level, the Security Council had adopted two resolutions which aimed at equality between genders and that the General Assembly had also adopted a resolution for the promotion of women in the United Nations. She also highlighted the fact that there had recently been a world first in the promotion of women: in elections that had taken place in Rwanda, more than 50 per cent of the seats had been taken by women. The Egyptian Parliament had also recently introduced a quota of 64 women in its People’s Assembly.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, noted that a study on gender mainstreaming had already been submitted to the Council, and the Council had decided to consider it at a later stage. In the meantime, she proposed the Committee draft a proposal to the Council requesting the mandate to carry out a study on the rights of peasants and rural populations, and also on the rights of rural women. Including the rights of rural women particularly would fall under mandate of the existing Council resolution on gender mainstreaming

DHEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Expert, thought that they were not asked by the Council to study discrimination against women in itself. There were already several bodies doing that. They were, rather, asked to highlight a gender perspective in their own work. They had already done that with regard to the right to food.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, observed that the rights of women were also the responsibility of men, especially in the context of domestic violence, and collective awareness and education were necessary. In addition, when dealing with the topics of the right to food and the rights of peasants, the Committee should incorporate a gender perspective in its work.

Progress had been made in the area of women’s political participation, Mr. Decaux highlighted, especially in Scandinavia, where women were equally represented in Parliament. Furthermore, 50 per cent of management positions in the United States were held by women. In France there were more female students than male students in higher education. Nevertheless, there was still a big gap in salaries between women and men performing the same job with the same qualifications and responsibilities. In addition, it was necessary to take action against the feminization of poverty, where women had been suffering greatly. In the United Nations context, he called for more support for the implementation of the discussed special body on women and for a new impetus for women’s empowerment.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, thought they had to react to the statement of the President of the Council, with regard to the mainstreaming of the gender issue. The Council had already given the Advisory Committee a mandate with regard to the mainstreaming issue and the Council had not really scrutinized the substance of the Advisory Committee’s proposal yet. The President of the Council had said that that issue could be taken up during the Council’s next session. How could the Advisory Committee react to that? Should it prepare the guidelines or wait for a further decision by the Council? It was a complex question, since the Advisory Committee’s power was limited; it could not carry out a research without a mandate by the Council.

Meanwhile, all Members of the Council had highlighted the importance of the guidelines, Mr. Kartashkin said. To his mind there were two possibilities. The first was that the Advisory Committee could adopt a resolution reminding the Council that they had asked it to give the Advisory Committee a mandate on the matter and to ask the Council to consider the matter and propose it to give to the Advisory Committee a mandate to pursue the consideration of this issue. But time had gone by, as they would have had to have adopted such a resolution yesterday. Maybe the President of the Advisory Committee could issue a statement reacting to the statement of the Council’s President?

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Chairperson, agreed to include the proposal made by Mr. Kartashkin in the draft recommendation to the Council.


Integration of the Perspective of Persons with Disabilities

Turning to the issue of the perspective of persons with disabilities, Ms. Warzazi highlighted that the Convention on Persons with Disabilities still had not been ratified by half of the States signatories. Legal measures had been discussed previously in the Committee on Persons with Disabilities. Bangladesh had expressed the concern that 50 per cent of disabilities could be avoided, and were due to poverty. Nicaragua had concurred with that statement. In addition, Swaziland had established a special fund for persons with disabilities. A new notion of human rights had to be included, focusing on States’ refusal to carry out reasonable arrangements, and that would be tantamount to a human rights violation. It was now States’ obligation to create all necessary facilities for the disabled in the public sphere.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Advisory Committee did not need to reinvent each and every Convention when they were taking up one of the subjects that was already covered by one. But the Conventions only created obligations for States parties and not necessarily for other States. There had to be national structures that handled programmes for persons with disabilities; those could be the national human rights institutions. He also saw two issues that could be analysed further: the situation of disabled people during natural disasters, including those who became disabled due to natural disasters; and whether there was a distinction to be made between the elderly and disabled persons or whether they were part of the same group.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, reverting to the issue of ratification of the Convention on Persons with Disabilities, noted that ratification had been low because countries had to spend large amounts of money if they ratified it to implement the Convention’s provisions. Perhaps the Advisory Committee should carry out a study on the difficulties with ratification and its consequences. Developing countries especially might find the financial burden the Convention put on them was too great for them to ratify it, while their might be no lack of will to protect and assist persons with disabilities.

Human Rights and International Solidarity

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Chairperson, moving to the issue of human rights and international solidarity, said that the Secretariat had more information with regard to the work that was ongoing since the adoption of the related resolution by the Human Rights Council.

LAURA DOLCI-KANAAN, Secretary of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, said that the Council had requested the Advisory Committee to prepare inputs to contribute to the draft declaration on the right of people to international solidarity. The sponsors of the resolution had just started the process of gathering information and collection of views for the preparation of that declaration, with the collaboration of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity. A questionnaire on the matter would also soon be sent to the Advisory Committee to contribute to that gathering of information.

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Advisory Committee Expert, noted that the Council, in its resolution 12/9 on international solidarity, had called on the Independent Expert on international solidarity to continue work on a draft declaration on human rights and international solidarity, and had requested that the Advisory Committee prepare inputs. In that regard, he highlighted that the notion of international solidarity included that of development cooperation. They should focus on that. There was a gap been between developed and developing countries, with that divergence being increasingly manifest within the Council itself. The fault lines also often lay along the lines of globalization debates and third generation rights debates. The issue of international solidarity also included the area of international cooperation, such as was seen in international disaster response.

Mr. Heinz noted that there were divergences in the documents on this area: international cooperation was sometimes referred to as an element of international solidarity, and sometimes as an emerging right. There was a further lack of conceptual clarity with regard to the principle of international solidarity itself, which was sometimes treated as an established principle, and at other times as an emerging one. It would be useful if there were draft principles responding to each of the above stated topics, rather than a discussion of the disperse and general topic of solidarity. Finally, it was suggested that the Committee for the time being held back its comments on the issue until it received the draft from the Special Rapporteur, who had been asked to draft the declaration.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, thought that “solidarity” was not necessarily a bad word. Also, solidarity involved civil society. Thus it could be interesting to have a broad consultation with non-governmental organizations on the topic. Solidarity was a moral obligation. While it was difficult to distinguish between legal and moral obligations, they were not the same; there was no legal obligation, for example, regarding fraternity or solidarity. The old Human Rights Commission’s resolutions on the matter did not help very much either. France had called the subject a hot potato, which spoke for itself. Also, while the Advisory Committee should not repeat the work of the Independent Expert, it could not respond to this request in a vacuum.

SHIQIU CHEN, Advisory Committee Expert, said at this point the Committee should think about how to embark on implementing the request by the Council. It covered many topics, such as the sources of international law, the eradication of poverty, achievement of equity and justice, the right to development, the Millennium Development Goals, and response to natural disasters and disease. Internationally speaking, there was a lot of divergence on these areas. For example, the right to development was still not definitively accepted as a right. They should hold a debate as to how the topic should be tackled, so as to narrow the scope of the topic. Internationally accepted and agreed upon principles had to be the guide of the Committee rather than controversial principles. It was noted that there was a legal basis for international cooperation in the United Nations Charter. In order to achieve the goals of the Charter, international cooperation and solidarity were necessary. In accordance with such a legal principle, the Committee should evaluate previous United Nations efforts.

Mr. Chen felt that the United Nations had not abided fully by that principle; indeed, in the Human Rights Council in the past, solidarity had not been present – blaming and shaming had prevailed, often due to issues that had little to do with human rights. And, in the end, human rights issues had not been resolved. As an example, when a resolution had been passed, as a sign of resistance some States had not even allowed the High Commissioner for Human Rights on their territory, and that had not helped the human rights situation. In cases where raising human rights issues had been done with a view to fostering regime change, solidarity had not been achieved either. There should be a change in the way of doing things. Instead of condemnation, the United Nations should offer advisory services, fact-finding missions and dialogue, which would create a more conducive atmosphere and would help improving the human rights situation.

SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the topic of human rights and international solidarity was without a doubt an important topic. As an international lawyer, questions had come to his mind when he had looked at the subject. The Independent Expert had said that the principle of solidarity could be regarded as a general principle of law in the context of the International Court of justice. He did not think that such a contention was sustainable. The pursuit of the possibility of international solidarity in the field of international law was not an easy task. He further underscored that the Council had not asked the Advisory Committee to prepare a draft declaration, but to prepare inputs for the elaboration of a draft declaration by the Independent Expert.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, stated that the members of the Council had not made clear what the right to solidarity was, and supported Professor Sakamoto’s previous comment that had referred to a legal imprecision in the document. The rights of peoples, the right to solidarity and collective rights were discussed. There was a lack of clarity as to what the principle of solidarity included. Before the Committee was to carry out the mandated study, a few questions had to be clarified first, including whether the principle, in fact, contained multiple principles. It was suggested that in future the International Commission of Jurists could make a valuable contribution on the question, but for the time being the Committee could not proceed further.

DHEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Expert, said it was difficult to draw a conclusion on the matter. Maybe the Advisory Committee could go back to the working paper by Rui Baltazar Dos Santos Alves on the concept of international solidarity in human rights. It was still important, however, that the Advisory Committee engaged in such an important discussion. In that connection, he highlighted that what was going on currently in the Human Rights Council Special Session on Haiti should also be regarded as a discussion on international solidarity.

CHINSUNG CHUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, focusing on the language of the Human Rights Council’s resolution, said that the Committee was mandated to contribute to the draft language of a Declaration after a Declaration had been drafted. A Declaration had not been drafted yet. She suggested that they form a working group within the Advisory Committee to prepare input to the draft language of the Declaration on the issue.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Chairperson, proposed the creation of a working group on the subject of human rights and international solidarity.


Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order

Turning to the last subject on today’s list, the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Ms. Warzazi said that Committee Expert Miguel Alfonso Martinez had been the one tasked with this subject. However he had been unable to attend the current session and he had not sent any document on the subject.

DAVID FERNANDEZ PUYANA, of the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law, said that peace should be recognized as a right. Peace was also linked to human rights and international solidarity. Several experts had considered on the basis of studies that they could identify the right to peace as an emerging right. It had been recommended that there should be an open-ended working group that would start working on the issue. Such a Working Group should be set up in the Human Rights Council to look a people’s right to peace. The right to peace would bring harmony among culture and religions.


For use of the information media; not an official record

AC10/008E