(English) Human Rights Council
MORNING 30 September 2010
Adopts Presidential Statement on Haiti which Extends Mission of Independent
Expert on Human Rights in Haiti until September 2011
The Human Rights Council this morning adopted 12 texts in which it, among other things extended for three years the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living; the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; and the Working Group on the use of mercenaries. One of the texts was a President Statement in which the Council approved a request by Haiti to have the mission of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti extended until September 2011. The other texts dealt with human rights and international solidarity, water and sanitation, leprosy, human rights education, migrants and maternal mortality and morbidity.
Through the texts adopted, the Council extended for three years the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; and the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination for three years.
In the Presidential Statement on Haiti, the Council strongly encouraged the international community as a whole to step up their cooperation with the constituted authorities of Haiti for the full realization of human rights. The Council welcomed the request of the Haitian authorities to have the mission of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti extended until September 2011, and decided to approve that request.
On human rights and international solidarity, the Council requested the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity to continue his work in the preparation of a draft declaration on the right to peoples and individuals to international solidarity, and in further developing guidelines, standards, norms and principles with a view to promoting and protecting this right, by addressing existing and emerging obstacles to its realization. The Council also reiterated its request to the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to prepare, in cooperation with the Independent Expert, inputs to contribute to the elaboration of the draft declaration and the guidelines, standards, norms and principles with a view to promoting and protecting this right.
On indigenous peoples, the Council decided to hold, within existing resources, a half-day panel, at its eighteenth session, on the role of languages and culture in the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ well-being and identity.
With regard to human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, the Council reaffirmed that States had the primary responsibility to ensure the full realisation of all human rights, and that the delegation of safe drinking water and/or sanitation service delivery to a third party did not exempt the State from its human rights obligations.
Concerning the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members, the Council requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to disseminate the Principles and Guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members as appropriate.
On the Plan of Action for the Second Phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, the Council adopted the Plan of Action for the Second Phase (2010-2014) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education.
With regard to migrants, the Council called upon States that had not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families as a matter of priority, and requested the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to promote and raise awareness of the Convention.
And concerning preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights: follow-up to resolution 11/8, the Council requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to invite States and all relevant stakeholders to submit information on initiatives that exemplified good or effective practice in adopting a human rights-based approach to eliminating preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. The Council also requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare an analytical compilation on the basis of the submissions that included an identification of: how such initiatives embodied a human rights-based approach; the elements of these initiatives responsible for successes in achieving reductions in maternal mortality and morbidity through a human rights-based approach; and ways in which similar initiatives could more fully give effect to a human rights-based approach.
Speaking in introductions of texts were Guatemala, Finland, Germany, Spain, Japan, Cuba, Mexico, and New Zealand.
Speaking as a concerned country was Haiti.
Speaking in general comments were the United States, France, Norway, Mauritania, Ecuador, Argentina, Guatemala, Brazil, Pakistan and Uruguay on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote were the United Kingdom, United States, Cuba, Argentina, and Belgium on behalf of the European Union.
When the Council meets at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will continue to take action on remaining draft resolutions and decisions before it.
Action on Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including Right to Development
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.5) regarding the human rights of indigenous peoples, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to hold, within existing resources, a half-day panel, at its eighteenth session, on the role of languages and culture in the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ well-being and identity; recognizes the importance of the contributions of all relevant stakeholders to the process of the Human Rights Council’s review of its work and functioning; welcomes the role of national human rights institutions established in accordance with the Paris Principles in advancing indigenous issues, and encourages national human rights institutions to develop and strengthen their capacities to fulfil this role effectively, including with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; encourages those States that have not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries of the International Labour Organization (C169), to consider doing so, and to consider supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and welcomes the increased support by States to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and decides to continue consideration of this question at a future session in conformity with its annual programme of work.
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), introducing draft resolution L.5, said that the resolution, which was proposed by the States of Guatemala and Mexico, provided certain safeguards for indigenous people to protect their heritage and history. The resolution approached the issue of the involvement of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. The resolution also reiterated the importance of involving members of indigenous groups in decision-making processes that affected them, as well as a greater presence at treaty body sessions. Furthermore, this resolution proposed an annual dialogue devoted to the subject of protecting indigenous rights, including a half-day panel on the role and protection of indigenous languages. Finally, Guatemala said that it hoped that the resolution would be adopted by consensus without a vote.
Action on Resolution on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.13) regarding adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to extend for a period of three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; takes note of the work on the Basic Principles and Guidelines on development-based evictions and displacements and of the need to continue to work on them, including through consultations with States and other stakeholders; requests the United Nations Secretary-General and High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all necessary assistance to the Special Rapporteur for the effective fulfilment of her mandate; notes with appreciation the cooperation extended to date to the Special Rapporteur by different actors, and calls upon States to continue to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur in the discharge of her mandate and to respond favourably to her requests for information and visits and to enter into a constructive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur with respect to the follow-up and implementation of her recommendations; decides to continue its consideration of this matter under the same agenda item.
HANNU HIMANEN (Finland), introducing draft resolution L.13, said it aimed at extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context for a further three years. Since its establishment, the mandate had contributed greatly to the awareness of a broad interpretation of the right to adequate housing. In the context of this mandate, a regular dialogue on the realization of the right on adequate housing had been developed with Governments and other relevant stakeholders by giving a particular emphasis to practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the rights relevant to the mandate. Obstacles had been thoroughly analysed and the Special Rapporteur had also identified specific protection measures in relation to the fulfilment of the right to adequate housing.
REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany), also introducing draft text of resolution L.13, said that during the last 10 years a lot had been achieved and the right to adequate housing had been firmly and visibly anchored in the human rights agenda and dialogue. In the future, the Special Rapporteur expected to focus her work on the right to adequate housing in post-conflict and post-disaster reconstruction, migration and housing, as well as on issues of social inclusiveness. The mandate holder would make an effort to disseminate to different actors the rights-based approach to housing by using different instruments and media. Finland and Germany had started the informal consultation process even before the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council and thanked all delegations which participated for their comments and advice. Germany then asked the Council to adopt draft resolution L.13 by consensus.
MARK CASSAYRE (United States), speaking in a general comment, said the United States was pleased to join the consensus, recognising that housing was an important human rights issue, and was changing its view of development to a long-term focus, seeking sustainable development and partners who wanted to build for their people. The United States was dedicated to addressing housing issues, and had many domestic programmes to aid its citizens to access housing. This resolution was applicable to the extent that countries accepted earlier texts on this matter. To ensure adequate housing was available to all its people, the United States was pleased to join consensus.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.14) regarding human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, adopted without a vote, the Council affirms that the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living and inextricably related to the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as well as the right to life and human dignity; reaffirms that States have the primary responsibility to ensure the full realisation of all human rights, and that the delegation of safe drinking water and/or sanitation service delivery to a third party does not exempt the State from its human rights obligations; calls upon States to: ensure full transparency of the planning and implementation process in the provision of safe drinking water and sanitation and the active, free and meaningful participation of the concerned local communities and relevant stakeholders therein; to pay particular attention to persons belonging to vulnerable and marginalized groups, including by respecting the principles of non-discrimination and gender equality; to integrate human rights into impact assessments throughout the process of ensuring service provision, as appropriate; recalls that States should ensure non-State providers: fulfil their human rights standards responsibilities throughout the process, including by proactively engaging with the State and stakeholders to detect potential human rights abuses and find solutions to address these; contribute to the provision of a regular supply of available, safe, acceptable, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation services of good quality and sufficient quantity; integrate human rights into impact assessments as appropriate, in order to identify and help address human rights challenges; develop effective organizational-level grievance mechanisms for users and not obstruct access to State-based accountability mechanisms; requests the Independent Expert to continue to report, on an annual basis, to the Council and to submit an annual report to the General Assembly; decides to continue its consideration of this matter under the same agenda item and in accordance with its programme of work.
JAVIER GARRIGUES (Spain), introducing draft resolution L.14, said that Spain was honoured to introduce the resolution with Germany on access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Spain reaffirmed its commitment to promoting all human rights. Spain also celebrated the fact that on the 28 July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the right to water and sanitation, which was linked to the right to life, the right to health and the right to human dignity. Spain reaffirmed the responsibility of States and non-State actors in the provision of water. States, however, bore the primary responsibility for providing clean water and sanitation to their citizens, even if it outsourced those services to the private sector. To conclude, Spain thanked the various delegations for their efforts and constructive work on this issue and hoped that the resolution would be adopted without a vote.
REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany), also introducing draft resolution L.14, said that non-State service providers could play an important role to alleviate the global water and sanitation crisis. States were free to choose the form for service provision, whether public, private or a mixture. However, States remained the principal duty-bearer and had to ensure that availability, quality and accessibility of water and sanitation was guaranteed within their jurisdiction. The resolution was the result of continued efforts and numerous consultations with Member States and other stakeholders. Germany and Spain thanked all delegations for their active participation and their willingness to maintain consensus on this important issue. In conclusion, Germany said that the human right to water and sanitation was essential for the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking in a general comment, said this resolution followed the General Assembly’s resolution of July 2010. The recognition of the right to water and sanitation as a human right that had happened over the past three months was historic. The right to drinking water and sanitation was a priority in France’s international action. In March 2012 France would host a Water Forum in Marseille. The discussions on whether the right to water and sanitation was a human right were things of the past, France said. Giving access to safe water and proper sanitation facilities would contribute to reducing mortality among women and children.
BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN, (Norway), speaking in a general comment, said Norway was pleased to co-sponsor the resolution, and thanked the main sponsors for their constructive, inclusive and transparent negotiations aimed at accommodating concerns raised. The rights to water and sanitation derived from and were indispensable to the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to health. The linkages between human rights and the Millennium Development Goals must be strengthened. The engagement of the Human Rights Council on the right to water and sanitation was particularly relevant to the realization of Millennium Development Goals 7, 4 and 5. This resolution was a natural follow-up to the Millennium Development Goal Summit in New York earlier this month.
CHEIKH AHMED OULD ZAHAF (Mauritania), speaking in a general comment, said that access to water and sanitation required a certain amount of equipment facilities and services, and these facilities and services were not available in all countries, and this was why Mauritania considered that this resolution should include provisions referring to technology transfer from countries of the north to those of the south, particularly developing countries. Further, there could be no speaking of this right without mentioning support required for the capacities of developing countries in terms of provision of such services, facilities and infrastructure.
SANTIAGO CHIRIBOGA-ACOSTA (Ecuador), speaking in a general comment, joined the consensus on this issue and supported the General Assembly resolution that recognized the right to water and sanitation. Ecuador voted for the resolution in the General Assembly and believed in the importance of this issue. However, Ecuador did not support all of the points in the resolution being put forth today before the Human Rights Council. The right to water should be a priority for all States but not a constitutional right, especially in States where resources were limited.
HECTOR RAUL PELAEZ (Argentina), speaking in a general comment, said Argentina supported the progressive development of international human rights law, bearing in mind that main international instruments had now become one of the main foundations of Argentinean law and the Constitution. The importance in having access to drinking water and sanitation to protect human health and the environment were recognised in various international instruments supported by Argentina. One of the main responsibilities of States was to ensure that their populations enjoyed access to water and an adequate standard of living. Argentina thus understood the draft resolution L.14 and believed that the human right to water and sanitation was a human right which each State must ensure for individuals under its jurisdiction.
PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United Kingdom regretted having to dissociate itself from the consensus. Inadequate sanitation had a negative impact on the protection of human rights, such as the enjoyment of the right to health. Drinking water and sanitation underpinned all aspects of economic development, and all countries should provide access as part of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The renewed focus on water and sanitation was appreciated. That said, this resolution recalled and reproduced text from a General Assembly resolution of July 2010 on which 41 States, including the United Kingdom, abstained, and also referred to the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, which the United Kingdom could not support. Neither a right to water nor a right to sanitation had been agreed upon in any United Nations human rights treaty. There was a right to water that was part of the right to an adequate standard of living, but the United Kingdom considered that there was no basis in international law for recognising a human right to sanitation. The adoption of the resolution today did not change this position. There was no clear internationally-agreed definition of the right to sanitation, and thus the individual did not know what he or she could claim from the State, and the State did not know what it should provide to the individual.
MARK CASSAYRE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States was proud to take the significant step of joining the consensus on this important resolution. The United States remained deeply committed to finding solutions to the world’s current water challenges. Safe drinking water and sanitation were essential to the rights of all people to an adequate standard of living and to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. On World Water Day, Secretary Clinton noted that nearly two thirds of the world’s countries would be water-stressed due in large part to climate change and population growth. The United States had a long-standing commitment to improving water access in developing countries and was one of the largest bilateral donors to water supply and sanitation efforts, committing more than $ 750 million for water and sanitation related activities in developing countries. While the United States joined consensus on this resolution, the delegation expressed their disappointment with the lack of consideration for other countries’ textual proposals, which had resulted in a text that still needed improvement.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Cuba appreciated the great efforts by Spain and Germany to ensure that the draft resolution was adopted by consensus. Cuba was concerned by views expressed earlier by the United Kingdom, the United States and Ecuador. The resolution adopted by the General Assembly in July 2010 recognised the right to water and sanitation as an alienable right. Cuba expressed its great concern that the Human Rights Council might not be able to confirm what the General Assembly had said in the said resolution. This was a progressive resolution in its implementation, Cuba said, and it needed international cooperation. The exercise of this right should not be subjected to the narrow interest of profit seeking in providing this type of services.
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Guatemala supported the resolution because it agreed with its essence, although not with all its content, and assumed that its application lay through effective national legislation. Guatemala also understood that adoption of this resolution would not generate any type of right or obligation that was justiciable among States.
Action on Resolution on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons Affected by Leprosy and their Family Members
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.18) regarding the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to disseminate the Principles and Guidelines for the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members as appropriate; encourages governments, relevant United Nations bodies, specialized agencies, funds and programs, other intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions to give due consideration to the Principles and Guidelines, in the formulation and implementation of their policies and measures concerning persons affected by leprosy and their family members; encourages all relevant actors in society, including hospitals, schools, universities, religious groups and organizations, business enterprises, newspapers, broadcasting networks and other non-governmental organizations, to give due consideration, as appropriate, to the Principles and Guidelines, in the course of their activities; and invites the United Nations General Assembly to consider, as appropriate, the issue of the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members, including possible ways to further promote the Principles and Guidelines.
KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), introducing resolution L.18, said that Japan was honoured to introduce the resolution on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members. Resolution L.18 was a follow-up resolution to Human Rights Council resolutions 8/13 and 12/7 that were adopted by consensus. Resolution 12/7 provided an opportunity for all relevant actors, including States, non-governmental organizations and others to express their views on the draft principles and guidelines. Japan said that today’s medicine had rendered leprosy a curable disease. However, prejudice and discrimination stemming from misinformation about and misunderstanding of the disease persisted, and persons affected by leprosy and their family members throughout the world continued to face grave violations of their human rights. Japan concluded by saying that it hoped that the resolution would be adopted by consensus.
Action on Resolution on the World Programme for Human Rights Education: Adoption of the Plan of Action for the Second Phase
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.26) regarding the adoption of the Plan of Action for the Second Phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council adopts the Plan of Action for the second phase (2010-2014) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education; encourages all States and, where appropriate, relevant stakeholders, to develop initiatives within the World Programme and, in particular, to implement, within their capabilities, the Plan of Action; requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in close cooperation with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, to promote the national implementation, as appropriate, of the Plan of Action, provide relevant technical assistance, when requested, and coordinate related international efforts; calls upon all existing national human rights institutions to assist in the implementation of human rights education programmes consistent with the Plan of Action; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization to widely disseminate the Plan of Action among States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations; and decides to follow-up on the implementation of the World Programme under the same agenda item in 2012 and requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare, within existing resources, a progress report on the implementation of the World Programme to be submitted to the Human Rights Council at its last session in 2012.
MANUEL B. DENGO (Costa Rica), introducing draft resolution L.26, said it had the honour to present it on behalf of the Platform for Training and Education in Human Rights, composed of Costa Rica, Slovenia, Philippines, Italy, Morocco, Senegal and Switzerland. The draft resolution touched upon the theme already known by this Council and proposed the adoption of the Action Plan for the Second Phase of the World Programme. It focused on higher education and on training programmes for civil servants, police and the military. The Action Plan that would be adopted by the Council today presented guidelines for initiatives on human rights education which would be developed at the national level. It would provide advice for actors involved in human rights education. The draft Action Plan had been submitted to States before it had been presented to the Human Rights Council. Its ultimate aim was to contribute to the ongoing process of human rights education and to go in greater depths into educating for human rights on all levels of life. This resolution recalled that all States and actors should implement the First Phase of the World Programme, but it also encouraged States to find their own original ways to promote human rights education in primary and secondary schools. Costa Rica then introduced a change to the text of the draft resolution. It was crucial to receive support from States, human rights institutions and civil society actors, Costa Rica said, and then concluded by saying it was convinced that the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.
Action on Resolution on the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self Determination
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.31) regarding the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 13 against, and 2 abstentions, the Council reaffirms that the use of mercenaries and their recruitment, financing, protection and training are causes for grave concern to all States and violate the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; recognizes that armed conflicts, terrorism, arms trafficking and covert operations by third powers encourage the demand for mercenaries on the global market; requests all States to exercise the utmost vigilance against any kind of recruitment, training, hiring or financing of mercenaries by private companies offering international military consultancy and security services, and to impose a specific ban on such companies intervening in armed conflicts or actions to destabilize constitutional regimes; condemns mercenary activities in developing countries in various parts of the world, in particular in areas of conflict, and the threat they pose to the integrity of and respect for the constitutional order of these countries and the exercise of the right to self-determination of their peoples; decides to renew, for a period of three years, the mandate of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination; requests the Working Group to continue to monitor mercenaries and mercenary-related activities in all their forms and manifestations, including private military security companies, in different parts of the world, including instances of protection provided by governments to individuals involved in mercenary activities; requests the Working Group to consult States, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and other relevant actors of civil society in the implementation of the present resolution and to report its findings on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session and to the Council at its eighteenth session; and decides to continue its consideration of this matter under the same agenda item at the eighteenth session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (31):Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Against (13):Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (2):Maldives, and Switzerland.
JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba), introducing draft resolution L.31, said that the subject of the resolution was important and timely. The resolution addressed the human rights issue related to the recruitment and use of mercenaries, which opposed the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter. The draft resolution also tackled the issue of private military and security companies that were being used to maintain foreign military regimes in different parts of the world. In light of all this, Cuba hoped that the resolution would receive the greatest level of support amongst members of the Human Rights Council and reiterated the importance of addressing this growing problem.
HECTOR RAUL PELAEZ (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Argentina supported the right to self-determination of people still submitted to foreign occupation. Similarly, Argentina understood that the draft resolution should be interpreted and applied as similar resolutions of the Committee of Demobilisation with regards to the Falkland Islands and recognising the dispute of sovereignty between Argentina and the United Kingdom as sole parties in the issues and asking them to find a speedy solution for the dispute. The right to self-determination must have an active subject, i.e. people subjected to foreign occupation. If such subjects did not exist, there was no right to self-determination, Argentina said. The Falkland Islands were illegitimately occupied by the United Kingdom which had expelled the original population and replaced them by their own population.
ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union continued to believe that the issue of mercenaries was an important one, and was concerned about the influence they could have on armed conflicts. The subject deserved to be addressed by the United Nations system, but this was not the right forum, as mercenaries were not primarily a human rights problem but came under international law. The European Union did not support the drafting of a Convention by the Working Group on the use of mercenaries. For these reasons and others, the European Union could not support the current draft resolution. The European Union called for a vote and would vote against the resolution.
PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United Kingdom supported the explanation of the vote made by the European Union. The United Kingdom also addressed the statement made by the delegation of Argentina and said it had no doubt of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. However, the United Kingdom said that it fully respected the right to self-determination and the position of the United Kingdom had always been very clear and publicly known.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and International Solidarity
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.32) regarding human rights and international solidarity, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 14 against, and no abstentions, as orally revised, the Council urges the international community to consider urgently concrete measures to promote and consolidate international assistance to developing countries in their development endeavours and for the promotion of conditions conducive to the full realization of all human rights; calls upon the international community to promote international solidarity and cooperation as an important tool to help overcome the negative effects of the current economic, financial and climate crisis, particularly in developing countries; requests the Independent Expert to continue his work in the preparation of a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity, and in further developing guidelines, standards, norms and principles with a view to promoting and protecting this right, by addressing existing and emerging obstacles to its realization; reiterates its request to the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to prepare, in cooperation with the Independent Expert, inputs to contribute to the elaboration of the draft declaration on the rights of peoples and individuals to international solidarity, and to further development of guidelines, standards, norms and principles with a view to promoting and protecting this right; requests the Independent Expert to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Council at its eighteenth session; and decides to continue its examination of this issue at its eighteenth session under the same agenda item.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (32): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Against (14): Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba), introducing draft resolution L.32, said the draft had been adopted year after year with the support of the majority of the Council’s members. International cooperation and international solidarity had a strategic importance today, particularly for developing countries and in the view of the recent financial and economic crises and natural disasters. Those often interfered with national efforts and development and improvement of the human rights situation. The text was geared to promoting international cooperation and international solidarity as key instruments in the system of international relations today. Cuba then made brief oral revisions of the text.
ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union attached the highest importance to international solidarity, which, as reflected in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed in the Millennium Development Goals, maintained its centrality today, and was at the heart of the European Union’s external actions. As the world’s biggest contributor in terms of development aid, the European Union demonstrated its commitment to international solidarity on a daily basis, and would continue to do so in the future. Its aim was to eradicate poverty and encourage sustainable development. However, it was the primary responsibility of States to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individuals in their jurisdiction, regardless of the amount of international assistance. The European Union had serious conceptual doubts as to whether the principle of international solidarity could be meaningfully translated into the language of human rights standards, as it was an important moral principle and political commitment, but not a human right. To define it as a human right would have no meaning for the people on the ground, and would be detrimental to human rights and to the principle of international solidarity itself. For this reason, the European Union called for a vote, and would vote against the resolution.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Indigenous People
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.6) regarding the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples for a period of three years; requests all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in performance of the tasks and duties mandated, to furnish all available information requested in his/her communications, and to react promptly to his/her urgent appeals; encourages all governments to give serious consideration to responding favourably to the requests by the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries to enable him/her to fulfil the mandate effectively; requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all the necessary human, technical and financial assistance to the Special Rapporteur for the effective fulfilment of his/her mandate; decides to continue consideration of this question in conformity with the Human Rights Council’s programme of work.
JUAN JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico), introducing the draft resolution L.6, said the draft resolution renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people for another three years. Mexico and Guatemala appreciated the work of the Special Rapporteur in improving the human rights of indigenous people and had particularly appreciated the dialogue established with indigenous people, Governments and various international organizations. Mexico was convinced that this mandate was an important mechanism to promote and ensure the effective protection of the human rights of indigenous people. It was important to reflect the most important paradigm in the evolution of the rights of indigenous people and to create the mechanism to address this issue. This mandate was supported by a number of delegations and the draft resolution was a result of a broad consultation with States, indigenous people and the Special Rapporteur. Mexico then introduced brief oral revisions to the draft text.
MARK CASSAYRE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the Special Rapporteur’s work made an important contribution to this issue. First nations communities across the world suffered from a dark history and today felt the heavy hand of development, both in terms of environmental degradation and lack of access to economic opportunities. The United States was fully aware of these problems and the Government was making efforts to address and resolve these divisions and imbalances within their territory. In the United States, President Obama had recently passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which aimed to provide first nations community members with better access to health care. The United States noted that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur had been amended and looked forward to working with the Special Rapporteur to continue promoting and protecting the human rights of indigenous communities around the world.
PETER GOODERHAM, (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United Kingdom supported the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. The United Kingdom recognized that indigenous peoples continued to be among the poorest and most marginalised peoples, and for too long their concerns had received insufficient attention in the United Nations system. The creation of the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples were important steps. The United Kingdom joined consensus on the understanding that the indigenous persons in the resolution were those as set out in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United Nations Declaration recognized that indigenous individuals were entitled to the full protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other peoples. Equality and universality were the fundamental basis of human rights, and therefore some people should not have rights that were not guaranteed for others. Therefore the United Kingdom did not recognize the concept of collective rights under international law. This issue remained contentious for the United Kingdom, and was one that the United Kingdom considered important, as individuals in a group should not be vulnerable and unprotected as their rights were superseded by the group.
Action on Resolution on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.7) regarding the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, adopted without a vote as orally amended the Council, decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, for a period of three years; requests all governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the performance of the tasks and duties mandated, including by responding promptly to the Special Rapporteur’s urgent appeals and providing the information requested; calls upon all governments to give serious consideration to responding favourably to the requests of the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries; requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all the necessary human, technical and financial assistance to the Special Rapporteur for the effective fulfilment of his/her mandate; and decides to continue consideration of this question in conformity with the annual program of work of the Human Rights Council.
JUAN JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico), introducing draft resolution L.7, said that because of the support given to the institution of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and the need for decisive action to protect human rights in the context of terrorism, it was necessary to extend the mandate for another three years. Some adjustments in the mandate would reflect developments achieved since the establishment of the mandate, Mexico said. By renewing this mandate, the United Nations would be in a better position to ensure the promotion and protection of the human rights of all and in all circumstances. Mexico thanked the co-sponsors and all delegations that had taken part in drafting the resolution. In particular Mexico was grateful for their constructive approach and flexibility. Mexico then made one oral amendment to the text.
Action on Resolution on the Human Rights of Migrants
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.8/Rev.1) regarding the human rights of migrants, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council calls upon States that have not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families as a matter of priority, and requests the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to promote and raise awareness of the Convention; encourages Member States that have not already done so to enact domestic legislation and take further effective measures to combat international trafficking in and smuggling of migrants, recognizing that these crimes may endanger the lives of migrants or subject them to harm, servitude or exploitation, which may also include debt bondage, slavery, sexual exploitation or forced labour, and also encourages Member States to strengthen international cooperation to combat such trafficking and smuggling; expresses its concern at legislation and measures adopted by some States that may restrict the human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants, and reaffirms that, when exercising their sovereign right to enact and implement migratory and border security measures, States have the duty to comply with their obligations under international law, including international human rights law, in order to ensure full respect for the human rights of migrants; and decides to remain seized of the matter.
JUAN JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico), introducing draft resolution L.8/Rev.1, said that this resolution was important and put the rights of migrants at the centre of the debate. The resolution also recognized the extreme vulnerability of migrants, especially ones that resorted to illegal channels of migration. The protection of migrants against organized crime was also highlighted as an area of concern by Mexico, including abduction, which required the cooperation of all States. Restrictive migration policies had not put an end to illegal migration, but had made it more dangerous. States had an obligation to respect as well as protect the rights of migrants. Mexico concluded by thanking the co-sponsors for their support and the spirit of collaboration that marked the preparation of this draft resolution and the revisions.
Action on Resolution on Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Human Rights: Follow-Up to Resolution 11/8
In a resolution (A/HRC/15/L.27) regarding preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights: follow-up to resolution 11/8, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council reaffirms the commitment to strengthening national statistical systems, including for effectively monitoring progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and reiterating the need to increase efforts in support of statistical capacity building in developing countries; calls upon States to collect disaggregated data, including disaggregated by age, rural/urban and other relevant criteria, in relation to maternal mortality and morbidity to ensure effective targeting of policies and programmes to address discrimination and the needs of disadvantaged and marginalized women and adolescent girls and to permit effective monitoring of policies and programmes, including through the adoption of national level targets and indicators reflecting the main underlying causes of maternal mortality and morbidity, and through the development of appropriate health programmes; encourages States and other relevant stakeholders, including national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations to take action at all levels to address the interlinked root causes of maternal mortality and morbidity, such as poverty, malnutrition, harmful practices, lack of accessible and appropriate healthcare services, information and education and gender inequality, and paying particular attention to eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to invite States and all relevant stakeholders to submit information on initiatives that exemplify good or effective practice in adopting a human rights-based approach to eliminating preventable maternal mortality and morbidity; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare, on the basis of the above submissions, an analytical compilation that includes an identification of: how such initiatives embody a human rights-based approach; the elements of these initiatives responsible for successes in achieving reductions in maternal mortality and morbidity through a human rights-based approach; and ways in which similar initiatives could more fully give effect to a human rights-based approach; decides to address the analytical compilation within the programme of work at its eighteenth session, and to consider taking further possible action on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights.
The Council held a procedural debate as to whether to postpone the consideration of the above text, which was defeated by a vote of 14 in favour, 32 against, and 1 abstention.
WENDY HEATON (New Zealand), introducing the draft resolution L.27 also on behalf of Colombia and Burkina Faso, said that last year the Council had recognised in resolution 11/8 that preventable maternal mortality and morbidity was a human rights challenge that required the effective promotion and protection of human rights of women and girls. In September a new report called Trends in Maternal Mortality had outlined new United Nations estimates showing a notable decline in the number of women dying due to complications during pregnancy and child birth. Still it only translated in an average annual decline of just 2.3 per cent or less that half what was needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals target of reducing maternal mortality by three quarters by 2015. Much remained to be done and the international community could not be complacent, New Zealand said. The Human Rights Council had a role to play in contributing to efforts to reduce those figures and to achieve Millennium Development Goal 5, which was the furthest from realisation. While maternal mortality and morbidity were a challenge in all regions of the world, evidence showed that there were good practices in all regions and their sharing could assist towards successfully addressing this problem. The resolution requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare an analytical compilation of initiatives that exemplified good and effective practices in adopting a human rights-based approach to eliminating preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. New Zealand then introduced brief oral revisions to the text.
MARIAM AFTAB (Pakistan), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said this was an important matter, and Pakistan would have liked to support it. However, Pakistan disassociated itself from operative paragraph one of the text.
Action on President’s Statement on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building to Haiti
In a President’s Statement on Technical assistance and capacity-building to Haiti, adopted without a vote, the Council stresses the need to tackle obstacles that are preventing the people from fully exercising their human rights, including access to food, decent housing, health care, drinking water, sanitation, education and employment; stresses also the need to rapidly restore the system for the issuance of identity documents, property deeds and other essential documents, so that the people may fully exercise their rights; strongly encourages the international community as a whole, and in particular international donors, the group of countries known as the Friends of Haiti, United Nations specialized agencies, and regional and international organizations, to step up their cooperation with the constituted authorities of Haiti for the full realization of human rights; invites the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission and other competent international bodies to take full account of the recommendations made by the High Commissioner concerning greater protection of the human rights of displaced persons, women, children, persons with disabilities and migrants; welcomes the request of the Haitian authorities to have the mission of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti extended until September 2011, and decides to approve that request; underscores the need for heightened awareness of human rights during the reconstruction process through, inter alia, the integration of a human rights-based approach in reconstruction projects, including private and bilateral projects and associated calls for tender; and invites the expert to undertake a mission to Haiti in the near future and to report to it thereon at its seventeenth session, and encourages the Haitian authorities to cooperate fully with the expert.
JUDE BAPTISTE (Haiti), speaking as the concerned country on draft statement L.4, thanked the Council President and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States for supporting numerous human rights initiatives in Haiti. The Haitian delegation was seeking an extension of the mandate of the Independent Expert on Haiti and hoped that he would address the different human rights issues in the country, including such things as the rights of the disabled. The extension of the mandate would help to strengthen institution building and ensure good governance and administration after the crisis. Haiti hoped that the international community would accompany the Government of Haiti and the Independent Expert in implementing the numerous recommendations made.
LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE (Uruguay), speaking in a general comment and on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, expressed its support and solidarity with the people of Haiti. The Group welcomed the dialogue with the Council and believed that the provision of technical assistance and capacity building was essential. They urged the international community to assist the Haitian Government in its efforts and believed that this statement would support the Independent Expert on Haiti in discharge of his mandate.
MARIA LUISA ESCOREL DE MORAES (Brazil), speaking in a general comment, welcomed the Haitian Government’s efforts and said that this initiative was an unequivocal demonstration of the willingness of Haiti to address its human rights situation. It was now up to the international community to help the Government of Haiti to surmount the many challenges facing the country and to boost the capacity of the Government to combat human rights violations and rebuild in the aftermath of the earthquake. Development and reconstruction would only prevail if the conditions were appropriate. As such, Brazil said that it would continue to support Haiti in its reconstruction efforts and provide humanitarian aid. Only a few days ago in New York, Brazil and a number of other countries discussed how to improve access to and the quality of health care being provided in Haiti. Brazil was committed to helping Haiti and encouraged all other States to partake in setting the country on the right path.
MARK CASSAYRE (United States), in a general comment, said the United States was firmly committed to supporting reconstruction efforts in Haiti, and reiterated the call to donors to live up to the commitments they had made. Donors should work through the mechanism established by the Government of Haiti for all reconstruction efforts.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking in a general comment, said that as a member of the Group of Friends, France welcomed the spirit of cooperation that made it possible to come up with the decision the Council came up with today. It was important that the international community stood by Haiti and that was the underlying sense of the decision to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert which would enable him to hear the needs of Haiti.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
Deja una respuesta