ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPENS FOURTH SESSION

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning opened its fourth session, hearing opening statements and then discussing a draft declaration on human rights education and training.

Halima Embarek Warzazi, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, in an opening statement, said the agenda before the Committee required great effort by the body to complete it, given the time allocated to the Committee. What should be recalled from the past was the considerable interest shown by a large number of States, international organizations, Universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), national human rights institutions and others in connection with the Committee's work, which had served to enrich this last. The work needed to be carried out as per the requests of the Human Rights Council, and the Committee needed to present a draft of the declaration on human rights education and training, and hold a discussion on the right to food. Hopefully during the session, all should benefit from a fruitful dialogue with national delegations and NGOs, who would continue to support the Committee with their rich experience.

Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Director of the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said since its establishment less than two years ago, the Advisory Committee had started to undertake important work within the scope of the mandate attributed to it by the Council. At the present session, the Committee was expected to culminate its work on some of the issues at stake, and, in doing so, it was hoped that it would continue to count on the expertise and engagement of all relevant observers, including Member States, national human rights institutions and NGOs, as well as United Nations specialised agencies and international organizations. There was a need for suggestions on concrete actions to be taken at the national level in order to strengthen a human rights perspective in response to the food and economic crisis. In conclusion, Mr. Ndiaye drew the Committee's attention to the six thematic priorities in the Office's Strategic Management Plan for 2010-2011.

Alex van Meeuwen, President of the Human Rights Council, said at this session the Advisory Committee was likely to wrap up some crucial work that the Council had set up. He stressed that a number of key topics would be addressed at the fourth session of the Human Rights Council, which was due to take place throughout March 2010. The Council was expected to analyze the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights before opening it for interactive dialogue. The Council would also hold high level talks on the global economic crisis, the rights of people with disabilities, and the rights of the child with regard to sexual violence. In conclusion, among other things, he mentioned the establishment of an open ended intergovernmental working group on the review of the Human Rights Council.

Emmanuel Decaux, Rapporteur of the drafting group on human rights education and training, said the Advisory Committee had a group responsibility and it was up to the Human Rights Council to examine the fruits of such efforts. Without going into much detail, he mentioned the main points of the draft declaration on human rights education and training, stressing that there were no priorities as such. It was crucial to define terms such as human rights education, a right which was neither new nor specific. It was a fundamental element and a sub-theme that was at the core of all human knowledge. The document sought to clarify terminology across cultures and languages. Furthermore, human rights education aimed to cover all aspects of school and professional training. Instead of getting locked in terminology, it was crucial to clarify the content of such terms. Ultimately, human rights education was about learning, training and raising awareness. The draft was meant to be a tool, one which made a difference and transformed ideals into reality.

Committee Members speaking on the draft declaration, said, among other things, that in many countries, it was non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions which had taken the initiative in making human rights known to people, while the State lagged behind, especially when it came to incorporating human rights education in national curricula. What was important when the text was produced was how far could it be enforced and implemented, and the Committee had to look at how to move from theory to practice. It was important to say that education in human rights should be free.

Speaking this morning were Wolfgang Stefan Heinz; Dheerujlall Seetulsingh; Vladimir Kartashkin; Jose Bengoa; Shiqiu Chen; Jean Ziegler; Mona Zulficar; and Chinsung Chung. Also speaking were Italy, on behalf of the Platform for Human Rights Education, Mexico, Spain on behalf of the European Union, and Pakistan.

The Committee also held a minute of silence in tribute to the victims of human rights violations throughout the world, as well as the victims of the dreadful natural disaster that took place in Haiti.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will continue to discuss the draft declaration on human rights education and training.

Opening Statements

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, said the Advisory Committee appreciated the presence of the President of the Human Rights Council, who was demonstrating his commitment to the work of the Committee. This session was marked by the absence of two colleagues and friends, who, for medical reasons, were not able to attend the session. The agenda before the Committee required great effort by the body to complete it, given the time allocated to the Committee. What should be recalled from the past was the considerable interest shown by a large number of States, international organizations, Universities, NGOs, national human rights institutions and others in connection with the Committee's work, which had served to enrich it. The work needed to be carried out as per the requests of the Human Rights Council, and the Committee needed to present a draft of the United Nations Declaration on human rights education and training, and hold a discussion on the right to food. Hopefully during the session, all should benefit from a fruitful dialogue with national delegations and NGOs, who would continue to support the Committee with their rich experience.

The Committee then held a minute of silence in tribute to the victims of human rights violations throughout the world, as well as the victims of the dreadful natural disaster that took place in Haiti.

BACRE WALY NDIAYE, Director of the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said since its establishment less than two years ago, the Advisory Committee had started to undertake important work within the scope of the mandate attributed to it by the Council - in particular, during its last session in August, the work of the Committee had advanced meaningfully in relation to some of the mandates stemming from Council resolutions. At the present session, the Committee was expected to culminate its work on some of the issues at stake, and, in doing so, it was hoped that it would continue to count on the expertise and engagement of all relevant observers, including Member States, national human rights institutions and NGOs, as well as United Nations specialised agencies and international organizations. In relation to the drafting by the Committee of a United Nations Declaration on human rights education and training, the Office welcomed the comprehensive work of the Committee, culminating in the report presented at the present session by Mr. Decaux, Rapporteur of the relevant drafting group. Such a Declaration would reinforce the message that human rights education was a crucial tool to prevent human rights violations.

The Office welcomed the various opportunities to discuss the draft set of guidelines and principles on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members with Professor Sakamoto, a Member of the Committee. Leprosy must be integrated in all strategies addressing neglected diseases, which, as a whole, should be given greater priority in the international agenda. The Council had requested the Advisory Committee to prepare a study on best practices in the matter of missing persons for submission to the Council at its fifteenth session. The Office of the High Commissioner also welcomed the on-going work by the Committee and its relevant drafting group on the issue of discrimination in the context of the right to food - the Committee could play in important role in providing clear analysis and valuable guidance in this regard. Global advocacy had increased to a certain extent the focus on the most vulnerable groups; however, these efforts had yet to articulate more clearly issues related to accountability. There was a need for suggestions on concrete actions to be taken at the national level in order to strengthen a human rights perspective in response to the food and economic crisis. In conclusion, Mr. Ndiaye drew the Committee's attention to the six thematic priorities in the Office's Strategic Management Plan for 2010-2011, which included: countering discrimination, pursuing economic, social and cultural rights, ensuring the realisation of human rights in the context of migration, combating impunity and strengthening accountability, the rule of law and democratic societies, protecting human rights in situations of armed conflict, violence and insecurity, and strengthening international human rights mechanisms and the progressive development of international human rights law.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN, President of the Human Rights Council, reiterated that once again, the Human Rights Council would be expected to carry out its core duties by engaging with its instruments, its Special Procedures, independent experts and its Universal Periodic Review mechanism. At this session, the Advisory Committee was likely to wrap up some crucial work that the Council had set up. A number of key topics would be addressed at the fourth session of the Human Rights Council, which was due to take place throughout March 2010. The Council was expected to analyze the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights before opening it for interactive dialogue. In that regard, the Council was expected to carry out talks with 13 Special Procedure mandate holders and to address reports prepared by the Advisory Committee, the Social Forum and the Forum on matters concerning minorities. The Council would also hold high-level talks on the global economic crisis, the rights of people with disabilities, and the rights of the child with regard to sexual violence. In conclusion, among other things, he mentioned, citing General Assembly resolution 60/251, the establishment of an open ended intergovernmental working group on the five-year review of Human Rights Council.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Chairperson of the Advisory Committee, said that the Council had a very short time available for its workload, and the work done by the Human Rights Council nevertheless remained very satisfactory. It could be useful to ask the President of the Council to intervene to see whether the Council could deal as quickly as possible with the documents and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee to the Council, and to see to what extent it would be possible for the Committee to benefit from a great deal of indulgence, not receive favourable treatment, but rather treatment that would enable the Committee to carry out its work more effectively. The Committee had been unfailing in its efforts to respond and respect the tasks entrusted to it by the Council to date. The Committee was going to work ever more enthusiastically in the future. The Committee had a range of issues before it, including the draft on missing persons, which it would review. The text on elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy was quite consistent, but the reports submitted to the people responsible for this study and hence to the Committee were numerous. Not all of these proposals would be accepted but they would all be considered, as the Committee had to send a very concise text to the Human Rights Council. Unfortunately, there was very little time available for this work in parallel with the rest of the session.

Discussion on Draft Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Rapporteur of the Drafting Group on Human Rights Education and Training and Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Human Rights Council had given the Advisory Committee a mammoth task; to draw up a draft declaration on human rights education and training. The Council had set a timetable with two major deadlines, which the Committee/drafting group was determined to meet. The Interim Report for the 2009 session was satisfactory and adapted by consensus. The second deadline was for a final report, which was due for discussion in 2010. He also cited a high-level discussion on the topic, which was due to take place at the thirteenth session of the Human Rights Council next March. He was pleased to highlight the active contribution of all of the drafting group’s members, noting transparency at all stages of those meetings. Side events had allowed the group to hold informal talks with non-governmental organizations and other international bodies. He hoped that recent work on human rights and education would develop further. Speaking on behalf of the group, Mr. Decaux said he wanted the Advisory Committee to discuss the draft declaration, of which there was an English version, in depth. He was disappointed that it had not been translated into all of the other official United Nations languages.

The Advisory Committee had a group responsibility and it was up to the Human Rights Council to examine the fruits of such efforts. Such exercises would be exemplary and a crucial precedent for the future of the Committee. Without going into much detail, he mentioned the draft’s main points, stressing that there were no priorities as such. It was crucial to define terms such as human rights education, a right which was neither new nor specific. It was a fundamental element and a sub-theme that was at the core of all human knowledge. The document sought to clarify terminology across cultures and languages. Furthermore, human rights education aimed to cover all aspects of school and professional training. Instead of getting locked in terminology, it was crucial to clarify the content of such terms, he cautioned. It would be useful to establish a human rights learning year, citing procedural and priority problems. Ultimately, human rights education was about learning, training and raising awareness. The draft was meant to be a tool, one which made a difference and transformed ideals into reality.

WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Advisory Committee Expert, said he wished to congratulate those colleagues who had worked on the draft declaration. With regards to point 33 of the draft, the language on the International Monitoring Centre should be changed, and there should be an inclusion of more language. At the national level, a monitoring institute should be set up, with a task of evaluating human rights education and training and activities. When it came to implementing human rights and monitoring them, there was a heavy focus on different Ministries, and there should be a department which examined all the performance, and thus the text should include a monitoring body to examine human rights education and training.

DHEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Expert, said the document was of a high standard. Professor Decaux had now produced a seventh draft, which incorporated a lot of remarks made by NGOs. Mr. Seetulsingh endorsed the proposal made by many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that it was not for the State to decide what programmes NGOs should engage in when teaching or promoting the learning of human rights. In many countries, it was NGOs and national human rights institutes which took the initiative in making human rights known to people, while the State lagged behind, especially when it came to incorporating human rights education in national curricula. This afternoon, when individual articles were to be discussed, it would be seen that it was not for the State to set an agenda of human rights education for NGOs. A general remark was on the translation of the document, and this would also be discussed this afternoon. Another general remark was on education and learning, and in the draft article three, it was specified that human rights education and training could not be disassociated from the full implementation of the right to education. Mr. Seetulsingh believed that human rights education could be dissociated from this right - it could be a stand-alone principle, especially when considered that in many developing countries and poorer countries, there was no education at all reaching the marginalised. There was an over-emphasis in the Declaration on the use of IT (information and technology), which latter was lacking in many countries, and therefore it should be toned down in the text. Cultural diversity should also be borne in mind in the text. What was important when the text was produced was how far could it be enforced and implemented, and the Committee had to look at how to move from theory to practice. The role of national human rights institutes should be further emphasised and could deserve a separate article.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said a considerable role had been played by Professor Decaux on the basis of comments by States and NGOs, and by comments made in the drafting group. The document was excellent, and could be adopted following discussion during the session. The main provisions reflected in the Declaration had almost all been verified. There was no doubt at all in connection with these basic provisions. With regards to item three of the Declaration, in paragraph 3.1, following the words "free compulsory primary education", the words "availability and accessibility of free University education" needed to be included, in order to remain in keeping with the Covenants on Economic and Social Rights which stipulated that higher education should progressively become free. In paragraph 8, at the end of the paragraph, the words "as a rule, human rights education and training in all different forms shall be made available and accessible, free to all, by any appropriate means" should be added. It was important to say that education in human rights should be free, because it was particularly important, in order to attain the ends of this Declaration, to involve as many population groups as possible in the human rights education process. If it had to be paid for, then that would considerably narrow the group.

JOSE BENGOA, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the draft Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training was crucial. Certain amendments had been made, after many previous discussions on the topic. Regarding the first round, it was crucial to ensure that reading addressed a target audience. Such a document would always be educational. Turning to rights in paragraph two, he cautioned that potential readers would not understand the declaration. He went on to say that human rights had been limited solely to the right to life. His second comment related to article eight, where education at all levels was mentioned. He said that was weak and that it had to be incorporated into compulsory and basic education at all levels. Article seventeen, one of the most crucial parts of the declaration, was along the same lines, he added. It cut across civil society and the core violators of human rights. He noted that the English word training was too weak and different to the Spanish translation. He argued that the declaration was not just meant for soldiers working in the UN system, arguing that human rights training had to be obligatory for the entire police force.

SHIQIU CHEN, Advisory Committee Expert, said the draft declaration on human rights education and training mentioned the importance of schools, non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions and society and so on, but the most important pivotal role should be played by schools, and the Rapporteur should put more emphasis on schools and school curricula incorporating the human rights education element. In paragraph 17, there was a mention of training of officials such as judges, but human rights education and training of schoolteachers should also be included in this section. There were many cases of human rights violations perpetrated by teachers, and this should be included. There should also be more detail on vulnerable groups. In most rich countries, there were foreign workers without citizenship, and many children who were stateless, and this should be further specified.

JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Member, said that human rights covered a range of rights. They did not however cover the right to food, of which he had been an expert for eight years. He argued that despite resistance to such a right he would continue to defend it. He noted a notable division among those who supported economic, social and cultural rights. He could not understand those who rejected the right to food without further discussion. He requested more information on that. He asked Mr. Decaux for information on the current state of second generation rights.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Member and Rapporteur of the Drafting Group, said with regards to the issues raised by Mr. Ziegler, this was not a green light, nor a test of strength, and this was not his intention, in one direction or the other. On the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Covenant, there was a dynamic in the ratification of the rights, and this was being made compatible with the adoption of an Optional Protocol on economic, social and cultural rights. In a more technical way, those who had subscribed to these instruments had admitted the objective or aim of the Covenant. There could be a way of debating the commitments entered into, and whether these could be justiciable in national law.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Member, said she was glad to see that some of the non-governmental organizations had already raised in their comments sections seven, eight and eleven, and wherever there were examples of persons with disabilities or special needs such as languages, and they needed to be included wherever there were grounds for discrimination. Another issue that was of importance had to do with the proposal of having a national mechanism for coordination or the conceptualisation of a national strategy of human rights education and training, coordinating implementation and monitoring assessment - having a national mechanism could not be neglected, as advocacy experience had shown that this gave a platform for stakeholders to express themselves, and provided a forum that empowered the process of human rights education and training. It was thus a useful and empowering mechanism, and it should be included in paragraphs 19, 20, and 23. There should be no split between the coordinating and oversight mechanism. Several colleagues had noted the importance of national human rights institutions - and they should be given a priority and signal that they could be playing leading roles in the conception and monitoring of the national human rights machinery at the national level.

CHINSUNG CHUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said there would be further comments on the draft declaration. Firstly, with regard to human rights education and training, there was the issue of concept. Had such a right existed, he wondered how far it would form a new pillar in international law. That had to be clarified. The right to human rights education and training was highly complicated as it included implementing the right to education. He mentioned poor regions where that right alone had not even been attained. The priority was to ensure a widespread right to education, although it was by no means a sequence to follow. Turning to global efforts, he noted that if Governments had the political will and resources, then measures to ensure those rights could be adopted. Yet, he wondered how that could be done at the international level, citing a voluntary global fund, which had been mentioned in the declaration. He questioned the legal basis of and legitimacy for a global monitoring centre. It was a good idea that had to materialize. Monitoring went outside the scope of the declaration as it would not be authorized to oversee all aspects of its mandate. It would require a more solid foundation.

LAURA MIRACHIAN (Italy) said this was a very interesting exercise. On behalf of the Platform for Human Rights Education, this was a crucial point in the whole process, which would lead to the adoption by the Human Rights Council, and subsequently the General Assembly, of a United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. The report and the draft before the Committee represented the first important results of work that had successfully gone through different phases, and had been conceived as an open, transparent and inclusive process. The Group, having examined the first draft, did not have a final position on all its aspects, however, it did have some preliminary thoughts. The Declaration was rightly conceived as a working tool for all stakeholders, aimed at providing guidance to undertake activities. It was also a general framework, within which further and more specific documents on human rights education could be developed, if necessary, at a later stage. A first important issue concerned the title, and consequently the definition of human rights education. Another core issue was the concept of human rights education as a right, which would most probably be one of the points to be debated in the next phase of the process. The section devoted to domestic implementation could benefit from a more specific attention to the role of the educational community. Language on human rights education as a tool to combat discrimination and to build bridges between different peoples and cultures could be further elaborated and included in the draft.

MARIANA OLIVERA WEST (Mexico) said that Mexico supported the task at hand. It was crucial to address access by persons with disabilities. It would be a loss not to include them and it was about time they had been accounted for and included in the text. Mexico was ready to work with the Committee to resolve that matter.

POL PLANAS CALLICO (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union welcomed work on the elaboration of the draft declaration on human rights education and training. The respect of human rights presupposed both the awareness of one's own rights and the respect and tolerance of the rights of others. The purpose of human rights was to develop a human rights culture that enabled each person to know their own rights and obligations towards other's rights, and aimed to encourage the development of individuals as responsible members of a free, pluralist and tolerant society. A Declaration would, in a consensual and non-legally binding manner, help to clarify the role and purpose of human rights education and training, and would provide a definition of the various principles and suggested responsibilities related to human rights education, and clarify the relationship between "education", "learning", and "training". Such a Declaration could also send a clear message from the international community that human rights education should be further strengthened. There was clearly important work still to be done on the Declaration. The European Union would have wished that relevant documents were made more readily available, and stressed the importance of a timely, coherent and consultative approach to the wider work of the Advisory Committee as a sub-body of the Human Rights Council.

MUHAMMAD SAEED SARWAR (Pakistan) said that enjoying human rights should be the international community’s concern. Human rights had to be a priority with education in human rights as a component. The draft declaration should have strong political commitment across regions. That would be instrumental in promoting values, beliefs and rights. The draft declaration was an effort to promote the right to education. The objective of human rights education should be to promote rights that were devoid of racial, religious and gender discrimination. There was no consensus on the definition of human rights education so generalized references to it had to be avoided. Furthermore, it did not account for different religions and cultures. Finally, part of the declaration should remind Member States that Education for All was a prerequisite for human rights education. He looked forward to further discussions on the subject.

For use of the information media; not an official record

AC10/002E