2008-2009 Human Rights Council Report Card

8/10/2019 2008-2009 Human Rights Council Report Card

1/20

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Government Positions on Key Issues

2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

REPORT CARD:


2/20



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

REPORT CARD:HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL


2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

REPORT CARD:

UN REGIONAL GROUPS OTHER CROSS-REGIONAL BLOCS

African Group (13 members)Asian Group (13 members)Eastern European Group (6 members)Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC) (8 members)Western European and Others Group (WEOG) (7 members)

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)(16 members on the Council)

European Union (EU) (7 members on the Council)Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) (27 members on the Council)Group of Arab States (6 members on the Council)

COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER

AngolaArgentina

Azerbaijan

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Bolivia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Brazil

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Canada

Chile

China

Cuba

Djibouti

Egypt

FranceGabon

Germany

Ghana

India

Indonesia

Italy

Japan

Jordan

Madagascar

Malaysia

Mauritius

Mexico

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Nigeria

PakistanPhilippines

Qatar

Republic of Korea

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Slovakia

Slovenia

South Africa

Switzerland

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Uruguay

Zambia

ABOUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 20082009 CYCLE

DYNAMICS OF REGIONAL AND CROSSREGIONAL BLOCS

Regional groups form the basis for geographic representation through designated seats on the Human Rights Council (Council). The membership of the

Council consists of 13 member states from the African Group, 13 from the Asian Group, six from the Eastern European Group, eight from the Group

of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC), and seven from the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). In addition to these informal

UN regional groups, several cross-regional blocs continued to be active at the Council, including the European Union (EU), the Organization of the

Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab Group, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

During the 2008-2009 cycle, the EU was by far the most active cross-regional bloc which spoke and voted collectively on most issues debated at the

Council followed by the OIC and the African Group. NAM and the Arab Group engaged on only a few issues such as the situation in the Occupied

Palestinian Territory and the global economic crisis. Generally, the African Group and the OIC remained at odds with members of the EU and WEOG

on many country, thematic, and procedural issues. However, there were cases this year when European states did not speak on behalf of the EU as

a whole, and when African states broke from their group to take stronger positions on human rights. During the cycle, the Asian Group, the Eastern

European Group, and GRULAC never spoke or voted as a group and continued to serve as swing regions on a range of thematic and country issues.

Russia, China, and Cuba almost always joined the African Group and OIC positions while Japan, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, Chile and Argentina

generally took similar positions as the EU.

President:

Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi (Nigeria)

Vice-Presidents:

Elchin Amirbayov (Azerbaijan)

Erlinda F. Basilio (Philippines)

Alberto J. Dumont (Argentina)

Marius Grinius (Canada)

Vice-President and Rapporteur:

Elchin Amirbayov (Azerbaijan)

OFFICERS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: 20082009


3/20

1 Forty-eight of the 66 country-specific resolutions and decisions were UPR outcomes. The Council held three working groups to review the human rights records of 48 states throughthe Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism. DCPs analysis does not include a substantive discussion of the 48 reviews of states under the UPR mechanism as it was consideredbeyond the scope of this study.2 The term special procedure(s) refers generally to a human rights expert(s) appointed or mandate by the Human Rights Council to work on specific country or thematic issues.3 Observer states can actively participate in the Council through speaking and sponsoring resolutions, but observers cannot vote.

position. In addition to the issues which DCP took a position on, we have also

examined other important debates and decisions which took place during the

Councils third cycle.

During the year, governments continued to speak on behalf of regional,

cross-regional, or geo-political groupings of states. In these cases, members

of groups were assumed to support the group opinion unless they clearly

disassociated themselves from the group position or were recorded as

expressing an alternative view. The positions of observer states were tracked

only in cases where they expressed an explicit position on the specific issue at

hand.3 Since many of the state-to-state consultations were conducted behind

closed doors, it was difficult to fully ascertain the role played by all states in

the decision-making process. Thus, analyzing the public statements and votes

of governments was judged to be the most accurate way to hold governments

accountable in a uniform manner.

ADDRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS

The Human Rights Council addressed a number of country-specific human

rights situations as hostilities escalated in several regions of the world.

Debates on country situations continued to reveal splits among states on how

best to confront crises in nations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo

(DRC), the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Sudan, and Sri Lanka.

Egypt continued to promote the problematic position that country mandates

which do not enjoy the support of the concerned government should not be

extended. Fortunately, this stance was not honored by all states in Egypts

regional group, many of which recognized the needs of victims in countries

that lack national and or regional protection.

A new trend was observed during the year where competing texts were

presented by the EU and by the African Group, OIC or NAM on the same

country situation. The EU texts typically contained stronger language relating

to ongoing violations and the human rights obligations of states, as well as

the inclusion of follow-up and accountability mechanisms. In the first half

of the cycle, the two texts were merged to obtain a soft outcome for the sake

of consensus. In the second half of the cycle, consensus was not regarded

as possible, and the alternative texts competed for adoption. However, for

procedural reasons and in one instance after procedural maneuvers the

weaker, congratulatory texts presented by the African Group, NAM, or OIC

were considered first for adoption by the Council. These events were followed

by efforts by the EU to strengthen the weaker texts with amendments. After

failing to secure stronger provisions on the DRC and Sri Lanka, amendmentsfinally succeeded in continuing a mandate on the Sudan late in the cycle.

ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT POSITIONS ON

KEY HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES 20072008

As part of its regular series of reports monitoring United Nations human

rights bodies, the Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) worked again to

provide an independent analysis of the UN Human Rights Councils (the

Council) third year of work ending at the close of the Eleventh regular session

in June 2009. DCP reviewed the bodys performance by studying the trends

observed at the intergovernmental body, as well as tracking the positions of

governments on thematic, procedural and country-specific issues during the

Councils third year of work.

The 2008-2009 year (also referred to as the third cycle) proved to be a busier

year for the Council as it met for the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh regular

sessions as well as the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh special sessions.

During the third cycle, the Council increased its focus on country specificsituations and also addressed a number of thematic human rights issues.

The Council adopted 121 resolutions and decisions and three presidential

statements, including 18 dealing with country situations during its regular and

special sessions and 48 country specific decisions as outcomes of the Universal

Periodic Review.1 In addition, it continued to debate its working methods

and procedures, particularly related to special procedures2and the work of

mandate holders.

METHODOLOGY

DCP has selected a set of indicators from the debates and decisions taken

by the Council over the 2008-2009 cycle. They consist of key thematic,

country-specific, and procedural issues deemed important by the global

human rights community. While the chosen indicators aim to measure the

general commitment by states to the promotion and protection of human

rights in the areas discussed, they do not represent a complete picture of the

international human rights records of states. Rather, they reflect the behavior

of governments on important issues addressed by the Council which drew

divergent positions among states, but which the human rights community

generally agreed that a particular position best promoted and protected human

rights.

To establish the positions of governments on these issues, DCP consulted

the public record through available documentation, UN webcasts, as well

as summaries of debates reported through the Council Monitorpublished by

the International Service for Human Rights. Based on this information,

each country was evaluated against the preferred position considered by the

human rights community as the best option for the promotion and protection

of human rights, and marked with a , , or , in the accompanying table.

States marked with an supported the preferred position while states marked

with a opposed the preferred position. States marked with did not take a


4/20



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

REPORT CARD:

SUDAN

The Sudan, which witnessed continued violence and human rights abuses

throughout the year, was one of several countries to receive repeated attentionby the Council over the course of the cycle. At the Ninth session, France (on

behalf of the EU) presented a draft resolution4that sought to address the critical

human rights issues on the ground, as well as secure the year-long extension of

the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan.

However, after further consultations, a revised resolution was jointly introduced by

France (on behalf of the EU) and Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) which

regrettably reconfigured the text to extend the mandate only until June 2009 rather

than a full year as stipulated in the institution-building text.5 The final text also

lacked references to ongoing human rights violations. Despite these significant

weaknesses, the resolution was adopted by consensus.6

A resolution dealing with the situation in the Sudan was tabled for a second time

at the Eleventh session due to the mandates partial renewal at the Ninth session.

The draft resolution, sponsored by Egypt (on behalf of the African Group)7

failed to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Rather, in stark contrast

to assessments by human rights groups, it acknowledged the gains made by the

government of the Sudan in improving its human rights situation and called

for technical and financial assistance to further these gains. At the session, the

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, in collaboration with 13 Arab NGOs,

expressed deep concern over the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation

in Darfur and the retaliatory actions by the Government of the Sudan in response

to the International Criminal Courts decision to issue an arrest warrant against

the Sudanese President on March 4, 2009.8 The conflict in Darfur has been

continuously deteriorating as a result of national and regional impunity practiced

by the Sudanese as well as Arab and African governments, the groups stated.

Not only is the Sudanese government failing to respect, protect, and fulfill the

rights of its citizens and offer adequate protection to the civilian population, it is a

flagrant perpetrator of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Noting that dissolving the mandate in its entirety was not appropriate to the

situation, Germany (on behalf of the EU, Canada, Switzerland and Japan9), with

the support of Brazil and Zambia,10introduced amendments to create a new

mandate for an Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the

Sudan for a period of one year. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Russia,

and the Sudan11all opposed the amendments, arguing that the African Group text

included mechanisms to keep the Council well informed of the situation. Egypt

called for a vote on the EU amendments, which led to their adoption by a vote of

20 states in favor, 19 against, and eight abstentions. The majority of the African

Group and OIC states voted against the amendments, while a select cross-regional

group supported the amendments proposed by the EU.12

The successful strengthening of the resolution was aided by Mauritius and

Zambia, which both supported the amendments, as well as Burkina Faso,

Ghana, Nigeria, and Senegal, which all abstained from the vote. The revised

resolution was passed in its entirety by an almost identical vote of 20 states

in favor, 18 against, and nine abstentions creating a new Independent Expert

for one year. Again, the support of Mauritius and Zambia, as well as several

states from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean states (GRULAC),13

ensured the resolutions adoption. In addition, six African states abstained

from voting in an apparent pushback against efforts to remove existing

Council mechanisms from this country situation.14

The support for continued engagement on the Sudan by Brazil, Ghana,

Mauritius, Uganda, and Zambia can be seen as a positive step in dampening

the influence of states that wish to weaken the Councils attention to this

critical situation. In the end, the majority of African states either voted for

or abstained from the vote to maintain a mandate. In a pointed statement,

Uganda, an observer state, expressed its hope that the African Groups future

actions would be more reflective of its true overall position on matters before

the Council.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

The DRC was also the subject of multiple discussions before the Council over

the third cycle. Renewed violence and heavy fighting between the Congolese

armed forces and armed rebel factions in late 2008 led to an urgent human

rights and humanitarian crisis throughout the Kivu provinces that left over a

thousand civilians dead.15On November 28, 2008, the Council convened the

Eighth special session on the Situation of human rights in the East of the

Democratic Republic of the Congo.The session, sponsored by France (on

4 A/HRC/L.2 was also supported by Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and Norway.5 Paragraph 60 of Resolution 5/1.6 A/HRC/RES/9/17.7 Uganda chose to remove itself from the sponsorship of the African Group text.8 Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies Joint written intervention before HRC 11th session about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur, June 16, 2009.9 Observer states Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway,Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United States also co-sponsored the amendmendments.10 While Brazil and Zambia did not co-sponsor the amendments they did explicitly state their support of the creation of an Independent Expert.11 A/HRC/11/L.19.12 In addition to the EU, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Switzerland, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Zambia supported theamendments. Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Senegal abstained.13 Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay all supported both votes.14 Angola, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Madagascar, and Senegal abstained. Angola voted against the amendments, but abstained from the final resolution.15 Ploughshares, Armed Conflict Reports Democratic Republic of Congo, January 2009. The over a thousand conflict related fatalities does not include the vast number of DRCcivilians that die each day from conflict related causes such as disease and malnutrition, or are victims of sexual assault.


5/20

behalf of the EU), received cross-regional support from 16 member and 26

observer states.16 In addition to the EU, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine,

and Uruguay supported the session. States from the African Group and the

OIC were noticeably absent from the call for the session.

France (on behalf of the EU) withdrew its prepared draft resolution from

consideration following informal consultations with Egypt (on behalf of

the African Group). A second draft resolution,17sponsored by Egypt (on

behalf of the African Group), as well as Monaco and Switzerland, expressed

concern at the deteriorating situation of refugees and internally displaced

persons resulting from the escalation of the conflict and condemned the

acts of violence, human rights violations and abuses committed in Kivu.

Nevertheless, it failed to provide for a new special procedure to monitor

the situation; instead, it invited the group of thematic experts and the

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to report

on technical assistance options for the DRC at the Tenth regular session inMarch 2009.18The resolution was adopted by consensus despite failing to

reflect the recommendations of experts and human rights organizations to

establish stronger mechanisms. In a statement on December 1, 2008, Amnesty

International sharply criticized the Council for failing to ensure accountability

for the violations.19We regret that the Council expended so much time and

energy on reaching agreement to make important political statements that it

could not find the political courage and unity of purpose to adopt practical

measures to give effect to them, said Peter Splinter of Amnesty International.

During the Tenth session in March, the Council adopted a follow-up

resolution to the special session, Situation of human rights in the Democratic

Republic of the Congo and the strengthening of technical cooperation and

consultative services,20which called upon the international community andOHCHR to increase assistance to the country. During the debate, African

states largely praised the governments efforts to engage the Councils

mechanisms and commented on the need for additional technical assistance

from international partners.21 On the other hand, states from every region

of the world except Africa, voiced concerns about ongoing human rights

violations and worsening humanitarian conditions, and reiterated support for

the recommendation of the thematic experts to create a new special procedure

to work exclusively on the DRC.22

Again, two separate texts were presented, one by the Czech Republic (on

behalf of the EU) and one by Egypt (on behalf of the African Group).

While the EU text requested that an independent expert on the DRC be

appointed for a period of one year, the African Group text simply invited

the Government of the DRC, the group of thematic experts and OHCHR

to update the Council on the development of the situation in March 2010.

Both the EU and the African Group texts ignored the middle-ground

recommendation by the group of thematic rapporteurs to create a mandate

on the human rights situation in the DRC in particular areas affected

or threatened by armed conflict.23The rejection by both the EU and the

African Group of the experts recommendation entrenched the negotiating

positions of the EU and the African Group leadership. Through a procedural

maneuver, Egypts resolution was considered first, thus removing the Czech

text from consideration. Germany (on behalf of the EU) then introduced a

package of amendments to the draft resolution24to strengthen the African

Group text. The amendments condemned the increased acts of sexual

violence and recruitment of child soldiers and called for the thematic experts

to form a coordinated group on the DRC to evaluate progress on human

rights. The EU argued that the situation in the DRC had significantly

deteriorated since the previous year and demanded the continued attention of

the Council. Unfortunately, the amendments were defeated by a vote of 18 in

favor, 21 against, and eight abstentions in part due to the abstention of severalAfrican states.25

In addition to Russia and Azerbaijan, the majority of Asian, African, and OIC

states voted against the amendments, while WEOG states and the majority

of GRULAC states supported the motion. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Japan,

Republic of Korea, and Ukraine also voted in favor of the amendments.

Notably, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Uruguay, all of which did not support the

call for the special session in November, voted in favor of the amendments

to strengthen the Tenth session resolution. Cuba and Brazil were the only

GRULAC countries not to support the amendments. The un-amended final

resolution was adopted by a vote of 33 in favor, 14 abstentions, and none

against. EU states abstained from the final vote due to concerns that the

resolution did not offer the necessary support that the situation warranted.Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Japan, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea,

Switzerland, and Ukraine also abstained from the vote.

OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

The Council continued its focus on the human rights situation in the Occupied

Palestinian Territory (OPT) throughout the third cycle.26 At the Ninth

session, Archbishop Desmond Tutu presented the report from the High

Level Fact-Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun and called for an independent

international inquiry into the November 2006 assault stating that it may have

constituted a war crime. A follow-up resolution to the Third special session

entitled Human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions

in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the shelling of Beit Hanoun, co-

sponsored by Morocco (on behalf of the African Group), Egypt (on behalf

16 The support of one third of the Councils membership at least 16 member states are needed to convene a special session.17 A/HRC/S-8/L.2/Rev.2.18 The thematic rapporteurs were appointed under A/HRC/7/L.13.19 Amnesty International, Human Rights Council: Words are not enough Civilians in eastern DRC need more than half measures, December 1, 2008.20 A/HRC/10/L.3.21 Algeria, Angola, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Tunisia, and Uganda.22 Canada, Chile, Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, UK, and US.23 The recommendation is included in the report of the thematic experts in para. 119, A/HRC/10/59.24 Amendments to L.3.25 Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mauritius, Senegal, and Zambia.26 The issue of human rights in the OPT is addressed through a permanent agenda item on the Councils agenda - Item 7: Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied ArabTerritories.


6/20



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

REPORT CARD:

of the Arab Group), and Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), was adopted by a

vote of 32 states in favor, nine against, and five abstentions.27Canada and all

of the Councils EU member states voted against the resolution, which calledupon all concerned parties of the conflict to ensure the full and immediate

implementation of the recommendations of the fact-finding mission. It also

called upon Israel to abide by its obligations under international law, including

international humanitarian and human rights law.

Cuba (on behalf of NAM), Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), and

Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) stated their view that the assault did, in

fact, constitute a war crime, and criticized Israels non-cooperation with the

investigation. France (on behalf of the EU) expressed serious reservations

with a number of the reports conclusions but stopped short of explaining

the rationale behind those reservations. In a statement on behalf of several

European member states,28the Netherlands explained that it was not in a

position to endorse the recommendations or ensure their implementation.Canada further argued that the resolution did not present an accurate

representation of the situation and was fundamentally flawed and one-

sided.

During the year, the Council called another special session on the human

rights situation in the OPT after renewed conflict. The Ninth special session

on The grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian

Territory particularly due to the recent Israeli military aggression on the

occupied Gaza Stripwas convened on January 9, 2009 in response to the

Israeli military siege on Gaza in late December which led to the deaths of over

1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.29The session was co-sponsored by Cuba

(on behalf of NAM), Egypt (on behalf of the African and Arab Groups), and

Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) and backed by a total of 33 member states. 30

EU states were conspicuously absent from the call, as were Canada, Japan,

Mexico, Ukraine, and the Republic of Korea.

The resolution31tabled by the special sessions sponsors strongly condemned

Israeli military operations, called for an immediate ceasefire and lifting of the

blockade, as well as for the return to peace negotiations based on a two-state

solution. The resolution also requested that the UN High Commissioner

for Human Rights, the Secretary-General, and all relevant special procedure

mandate holders report on the violations of human rights of the Palestinian

people by Israel. Finally, it requested the President of the Council to appoint

an expert to conduct an urgent international fact-finding mission. The

resolution was adopted with 33 in favor, one against, and 13 abstentions.

While nearly every state expressed concerns about the renewed fighting and

urged a ceasefire, the final voting reflected previous divisions on the conflict.

Speaking on behalf of the EU, Germany stated it would abstain from thevote due to the resolutions failure to address both sides of the conflict.

Canada, which called for a vote, was the only country to vote against the

resolution arguing that the text failed to clearly recognize that rocket fire on

Israel led to the current crisis. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Korea,

Japan, Switzerland, and Ukraine joined the EU in abstaining from the vote.

Cameroon was the only member state to sign the call for the special session

but abstain from the final vote on the resolution. In April, Justice Richard

Goldstone was appointed to lead the fact-finding mission and secured the

agreement of the President of the Council to investigate violations on both

sides of the conflict.32

At the Tenth regular session in March, the Special Rapporteur on the human

rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, Mr. Richard

Falk, presented his annual report,33which addressed the recent Gaza conflict;

the pre-existing blockade of Gaza; the tactics employed by both sides; and

the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements. Falk also recommended further

action to be taken by the Council to address his denied entry, ill-treatment,

and expulsion by Israel in December 2008 just prior to the start of the Gaza

war. The debate following his presentation once again reflected the traditional

divide among states regarding the conflict. The Czech Republic (on behalf of

the EU) said that it would welcome a review of the mandate of the Special

Rapporteur with a view to ensure the scope permitted Falk to report from

all angles of the situation. However, the issue of settlements drew broad

agreement from the Councils membership as the EU joined the African

Group, NAM, and the OIC in voicing concern over the settlements violation

of international laws.34

27 A/HRC/RES/9/18. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the UK voted against the resolution. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon,Republic of Korea, Switzerland, and Ukraine abstained from the vote.28 France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.29 United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Emergency Operations in Gaza Interim Progress Report January March 2009, June 24, 2009.30 According to the HRC report, A/HRC/S-9/2, Argentina, Brazil, China, Switzerland and Uruguay all signed-on after the initial request had been sent to the HRC President.31 A/HRC/S-9/L.1.32 Huffington Post, UN Israel-Gaza Investigation to be Led by South African Richard Goldstone, April 3, 2009.33 A/HRC/10/20.34 Bahrain, Cuba (on behalf of NAM), Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Iceland, Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, andTunisia.


7/20

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF KOREA

During the Tenth session, the Council again successfully renewed the mandate

of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic PeoplesRepublic of Koreafor one year. The resolution, Situation of human rights in

the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,35co-sponsored by the Czech

Republic (on behalf of the EU), Japan, and several other states, 36expressed

serious concern at the ongoing grave, widespread and systematic human

rights violations occurring in the country and urged the Government of the

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) to cooperate with special

procedures. Predictably, the Government of the DPRK firmly maintained its

rejection of the resolution, as well as the work of the Special Rapporteur, Mr.

Vitit Muntarbhorn. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted by a vote of 26 in

favor, six against, and 15 abstentions. WEOG states, most Eastern European

states, and several states from Africa and Asia supported the resolution.

GRULAC states were divided between those which supported the resolution

and those which abstained or voted against.37Regrettably, Brazil changed itsposition from support for the mandate the previous year to abstaining. China,

Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia all voted against the resolution.38

SRI LANKA

On May 26, 2009, the Human Rights Council convened theEleventh special

session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka in response to the

intensification of the countrys 26 year civil war which led to nearly half a

million displaced people and 7,500 civilians killed since renewed fighting

began in mid-January 2008.39 Germany (on behalf of the EU) sponsored

the session on behalf of 17 member and 20 observer states.40The majority

of states in the African Group, NAM, and the OIC withheld support for

the session. Before the start of the session, Cuba (on behalf of NAM) sent a

letter to the President of the Council stating its intention, along with Egypt,

India, and Pakistan to form a delegation on behalf of Sri Lanka to consider

alternative ideas to the impending session. While the session was convened

without delay, the move signified unified opposition at the outset.

While consultations were being held by the sessions cross-regional sponsors

on an outcome text, an alternative and largely self-congratulatory resolution,

Assistance to Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human

rights,41was introduced by Sri Lanka, the concerned country. The resolution,

co-sponsored by a group of states from NAM and the OIC,42commended the

measures taken by the government of Sri Lanka to address the urgent needs

of internally displaced persons (IDPs); welcomed the commitment of the

government to the promotion and protection of all human rights, encouraged

it to continue to uphold its human rights obligations and the norms of

international human rights law; and encouraged the Government to continue

to pursue its existing cooperation with relevant United Nations organizations.

Despite a repeated call by UN experts to establish an independent mechanism

to address the human rights situation, the resolution contained no follow-up

reporting or mechanisms.43 Most disturbing, the final resolution included a

reference to the principle of non-interference in matters which are essentially

within the domestic jurisdiction of states, a concept discarded by the

international community in successive human rights declarations over the last

several decades, and one that directly undermines the central mandate of the

Council to monitor human rights violations in armed conflict.

In response to the drafts glaring weaknesses, Germany (on behalf of the EU),

as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Mauritius, Switzerland, and

Ukraine, offered a set of amendments to strengthen the draft by amending thelanguage to call for increased accountability from the Sri Lankan government

and for OHCHR to present a follow-up report at the Twelfth regular session.

States were split between those which had called for the special session

and favored a strong role for the international community with regard to

humanitarian assistance and accountability, and those which did not support the

convening of a special session and supported the Government of Sri Lankas

prerogative to deal with the crisis. Arguing that the amendments were an

attempt to redraft the document, Cuba moved to shut down any further public

debate on the substance of the amendments based on Rule 117 of the Rules of

Procedure.44 Cubas no-action motion on the amendments was approved by

a vote of 22 in favor, 17 against, and seven abstentions. As was the case in the

call for the session, Argentina, Chile, Mauritius, Mexico, and Uruguay all voted

against the no-action motion. Unfortunately, a number of states, including

35 A/HRC/10/L. 27.36 Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States.37 Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Jordan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia,and Zambia voted for the resolution. Brazil, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Azerbaijan abstained.38 In addition, observer states, Laos, Syria, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan expressed opposition to the renewal.39 Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, Tens of thousands newly displaced in 2008, leading to almost half a million IDPs, April 2009, Last Updated May 1, 2009.40 Argentina, Chile, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Canada, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, and Uruguay joined the EU in calling for the session.41 A/HRC/S-11/L.1/Rev.2.42 At the 3rd meeting, on 27 May 2009, the representative of Sri Lanka introduced draft resolution A/HRC/S-11/L.1 as revised, sponsored by Sri Lanka and co-sponsored byBahrain, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, BrazilCambodia, Cte dIvoire, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal,Oman, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Singapore, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Viet Nam joined the sponsors.43 Four UN experts had initially sent a joint statement to the Council prior to the special session on May 8, 2009 calling for the creation of a commission to address human rightsviolations. At the start of the session another statement was made on behalf of all special procedures recommending the establishment of an effective mechanism to investigate allviolations.44 Rule 117 of the GA Rules of Procedures states that a representative may at any time move the closure of the debate on the item under discussion, whether or not any otherrepresentative has signified their wish to speak.


8/20



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

REPORT CARD:

Brazil and Nigeria, abstained from the no-action vote, thus allowing the motion

to pass.45The no-action motion was a stunning and disappointing maneuver not

employed since the Commission on Human Rights that allowed states to censor

substantive discussion of the views of other states.

The final resolution was adopted by a vote of 29 in favor, 12 against, and six

abstentions by a sharply divided Council. The absence of an actual debate

and vote on the amendments had spurred Switzerland to call for a vote on

the Sri Lankan resolution, after which it, along with members of the EU,

Canada, Chile, and Mexico voted against. Uruguay was the only signatory to

the session that voted in favor of the final resolution. Although Ukraine also

supported the call for the session, it abstained from both the no-action motion

and the final vote.

MYANMAR

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights inMyanmar46was renewed by consensus during the Tenth session of the Council

in a resolution presented by the Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU). In

addition to renewing the mandate for one year, the resolution expressed

the Councils concerns regarding the governments violent response to

demonstrations in September 2007, the lack of transparent political processes,

and the ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental

freedoms of the people of Myanmar. It also strongly urged the government

to desist immediately from further politically motivated arrests, reform the

judiciary, and cooperate with special procedures. In his report, the Special

Rapporteur on Myanmar, Mr. Tomas Ojea Quintana, cited a number of areas

of ongoing human rights concerns including the detention of prisoners of

conscience, the discrimination of minority Muslims, forced labor, and food

security. In its statement, the Government of Myanmar stated that the reportfailed to reflect the true situation on the ground; specifically, it asserted that

there were no prisoners of conscience in the country. There was limited

critique of Quintanas report from member states of the Council. Indonesia,

Japan, and the Republic of Korea reiterated the concerns of the Special

Rapporteur, including the release of political prisoners. However, China,

as well as a number of ASEAN47 states, including Laos, the Philippines,

Singapore, and Thailand, were largely complimentary of the governments

progress in improving the countrys human rights situation.

ASEAN states consistent failure to raise human rights concerns in Myanmar

at the Council led to pointed criticism of the regional grouping by local

human rights organizations. [Such silence] demonstrates a serious lack of

political will and effectiveness of the ASEAN as a regional body which claims

to adhere to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance,

respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, said

Yap Swee Seng of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development in a

September 30, 2009 statement.48

OTHER COUNTRY MANDATES

Throughout the cycle, the Council extended several other country-specific

mandates through consensus and with the support of the countries concerned,including Cambodia, Burundi, Haiti, and Somalia. A resolution was also

adopted by consensus on Liberia which did not extend the mandate but

requested OHCHR to continue its technical advisory services and programs in

consultation with the government.

At the Ninth session, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of

human rights in Burundi49was continued only until an independent national

human rights commission is established. This stipulation broke with the

guidance provided by the Councils institution-building text of extending

mandates for one year, and raised concerns for setting a negative precedent.

Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) and several African states50stated that

their support for the extension of the mandate was based on the wishes of the

Burundian government.

A resolution sponsored by Japan at the Ninth session extended the

mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights

in Cambodia.51The resolution, which provided for advisory services and

technical assistance, emphasized the improvements made by the Government

of Cambodia in recent years to redress the legacy of the Khmer Rouge

and further the protection and promotion of human rights throughout the

country. The resolution also changed the title of the mandate holder from

the Special Representative of the Secretary General to Special Rapporteur.

Several states pushed to insert a paragraph expressing concern for human

rights violations52but Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam objected that such

language would create difficulties for the concerned country. Mr. Yash

Ghai, the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Cambodia,

criticized the Cambodian governments lack of implementation of previous

recommendations as well as the dubiousness of the general 2008 elections.

At the session, Ghai announced his resignation from the post due to tensions

between him and Cambodian government officials.

Also during the Ninth session, the mandate of the Independent Expert on

the situation of human rights in Haiti53was extended until 2010 through a

presidential statement. In addition to commending the government for

its progress and cooperation with the UN in improving its human rights

situation, the resolution expressed concern over the deteriorating standard

of living in Haiti as a result of the economic crisis and recent hurricanes. It

also called on the international donor community to cooperate on providing

financial support to the country.

Although up for renewal, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the human

rights situation in Liberia54 was not extended at the Ninth session. In its place,

France (on behalf of the EU) introduced a resolution entitled Advisory

45 Azerbaijan, Brazil, Gabon, Nigeria, Senegal, Ukraine, and Zambia.46 A/HRC/10/L.28.47 The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) includes Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma (Myanmar), Philippines, Singapore, Thailandand Viet Nam.48 Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, ASEANs Silence on Burma at the UN Human Rights Council: Dont Speak Ill of Your Family in Front of Others, Septembe30, 2009.49 A/HRC/RES/9/19.50 DRC and Kenya.51 A/HRC/RES/9/15.52 Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and Slovakia.53

A/HRC/PRST/9/1.54 A/HRC/RES/9/16.


9/20

Invites thematic special procedures to urgently examine the eastof the DRC and report to the Council at its Tenth session on how bestto technically assist the DRC in addressing the situation of humanrights.

Invitesthe UNHCHR to report to the Council at its Tenth session onthe human rights situation in the east of the DRC and on theactivities that the OHCHR has undertaken in the region.

Emphasizesstrengthening the mandate of the UN OrganizationMission in the DRC and for all States to provide assistance to theMission to increase its capacity to protect civil ians and to restorepeace, security and stability in the region of Kivu of the DRC.

Requeststhe UNHCHR to report on the violations of human rightsof the Palestinian people by Israel.

Requestsall relevant special procedures mandate holders tourgently gather information on violations of the human rights of thePalestinian people and submit their reports to the Council at its nextsession.

Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent fact-finding missionto investigate all violations by Israel against the Palestinian people.

Requests the Secretary-General to investigate the latest targetingof UN facilities in Gaza and to submit a report to the GeneralAssembly thereon.

Decidesto follow up on the implementation of the presentresolution at its next session.

8th Special

Session

(November

2008)

East of the

Democratic

Republic of

the Congo

September

2008 -

January

2009

1,0334 250,0005

SPECIAL

SESSION

CONCERNED

TERRITORY

HEIGHT OFCONFLICT

DURING2008 - 091

(approx.)

CONFLICT

RELATED

FATALITIES2(approx.)

IDPs3

(approx.)

11th SpecialSession

(May 2009)

Sri Lanka Mid January2009 early

May 2009

7,500

8

300,000

9

9th Special

Session

(January

2009)

Occupied

Palestinian

Territory,

including

Gaza Strip

December 27,

2008 -

January 18,

2009

1,400

Palestinians

and

13 Israelis6

50,8967

OUTCOME FOLLOW-UP MECHANISMS

2008 - 2009 HRC CONFLICT ORIENTED SPECIAL SESSIONS COMPARISON

No follow-up mechanisms included in outcome.

1 The height of conflict refers to the time period during the Councils third cycle reported by news outlets and international organizations to see renewed or intensification of armedconflict.2 Includes the estimated number of direct conflict related fatalities that occurred during the height of the conflict within the year of the special session.3 Includes only additionalIDPs in the one year period during when the special session was convened, where figures are available.4 Ploughshares, Armed Conflict Reports Democratic Republic of Congo, January 2009. An estimated 1,500 civilians were killed in all of 2008. It should be noted that up to 1 ,200people were reported to die each dayfrom conflict-related causes, mostly disease and malnutrition but ongoing violence as well. Sexual violence was also on the rise, with 2,200 casesof rape reported in North Kivu in June alone.5 Refugees International, DR Congo. . Amnesty International reports that since the star t of the conflict inthe mid 1990s the total number of IDPs in North Kivu is over one million and may be as high as 1.6 million according to some estimates. Amnesty International, NGOs call for UNsession on the Democratic Republic of Congo, November 18, 2008.6 United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Emergency Operations in Gaza Interim Progress Report January March 2009, June 24, 2009.7 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Field Update On Gaza From The Humanitarian Coordinator, January 19, 2009.8 International Crisis Group, DRC . The ICG also reported that UN agencies estimated more than 7,500 civilianskilled between mid-January and early May 2009. A final offensive in mid-May may have killed thousands more.9 Amnesty International, Unlock the Camps in Sri Lanka: Safety and Dignity for the displaced now, August 10, 2009. Amnesty International reported that by the end of May 2009an additional 300,000 people had been displaced, the majority of which had arrived in the biggest complex of camps in April and May 2009. According to IDMC, as of February2009, UNHCR was reporting a total figure of 495,000 conflict-displaced persons in Sri Lanka. Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, Tens of thousands newly displaced in2008, leading to almost half a million IDPs, April 2009, Last Updated May 1, 2009.


10/20


11/20

At the start of the session, High Commissioner Pillay remarked that states

were not relieved of their human rights obligations in times of crisis andmeasures to protect these rights must be put in place as matters of both

urgency and priority. The debate was characterized by two distinct positions

maintained by developing and developed states. A number of states from

the African Group, OIC, and NAM made strong pleas for aiding populations

in the developing world that were facing disproportionately high levels

of economic insecurity.61 The Arab Group also noted that the financial

downturn threatened the rights of the most vulnerable. Bangladesh, Ghana,

Nicaragua, and Pakistan particularly emphasized that the crisis impacted

developing and less developed countries heavily despite having little role in

creating the financial conditions for the downturn. On the other side of the

debate were several states from WEOG, as well as Chile, which stated that

while they agreed that the financial crisis most adversely affects developing

countries, the crisis did not negate the primary role and responsibility ofgovernments to protect and respect human rights.62 The Czech Republic (on

behalf of the EU and other states) also argued that the issue of international

financial and trade regulations addressed in the resolution goes beyond the

mandate of the Council.63

The resolution, The impact of the global economic and financial crises on the

universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights,64presented by

Egypt on behalf of all of the sponsors, called on the international community

not to reduce levels of official development aid nor impose protectionist

measures. It stressed that the financial crisis did not lessen the obligations

of governments from respecting their human rights obligations. Finally, it

noted the importance of open, equitable, predictable, and non-discriminatory

multilateral trading systems in contributing to the enjoyment of all human

rights.

Disappointingly, the Council failed to reach consensus as some states

expressed concern that the resolution did not adequately stress the primary

obligation of states to protect and promote international human rights

responsibilities amidst the crisis.65Consequently, Germany (on behalf of

the EU) called for a vote on the text and stated the intention of the EU to

abstain as a group. Nonetheless, the draft resolution was adopted by a vote

of 31 states in favor, none against, and 14 abstentions. Canada, Switzerland,

Republic of Korea, Japan and Mexico joined the EU in abstaining.

COMBATING DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS

The Tenth session of the Council saw the passage of the recurring resolution

on Combating defamation of religions,66sponsored by Pakistan (on behalf

of the OIC). The resolution urges all states to provide adequate protection

against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, and coercion resulting

from defamation of religions and incitement to hatred, with a particular

focus on Islam. Germany (on behalf of the EU) expressed concerns aboutthe resolutions emphasis on the protection of specific religions rather than

individuals practicing those religions, noting that there were international

laws in place to protect an individuals rights to freedom of religion and belief.

The EU further argued that the resolutions attempt to protect religions from

defamation, particularly certain religions, was not appropriate to the debate on

human rights and thus it would call for a vote. Canada and Chile expressed

support for the EU position which was further echoed by the human rights

community. India criticized the OICs narrow interpretation of the concept

of defamation of religion, stating that it improperly singles out one religion

as its focus and that the issue was best addressed under the rubric of religious

intolerance or the abuse of freedom of expression.

The controversial resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 states in favor, 11

against, and 13 abstentions. The vote reflected a familiar divide; the majority

of OIC and African states, as well as China, Cuba and Russia voted in favor

of the resolution, while WEOG states, Chile, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine

voted against it. Some African, Asian and GRULAC members67chose to

abstain along with Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In a joint statement following the adoption of the resolution, ARTICLE

19 and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies described the concept

of defamation of religions as inconsistent with the right to freedom of

expression and the promotion of equality.68 Defamation of religion is

a concept commonly used by authoritarian and repressive governments

throughout the world to violate civil liberties and discriminate against

minorities. It has no place in the work of the Human Rights Council, said

Moataz El Fegiery of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.

61 Angola, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Mauritius, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal,Nigeria, Panama, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, The Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Venezuela.62 Canada, United Kingdom, Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU, Turkey, Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro,Serbia, Liechtenstein, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia), Israel, Chile and Switzerland.63 Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU, Turkey, Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Liechtenstein,Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia).64 A/HRC/S-10/L.1.65 Canada, Germany (on behalf of the of the EU), Japan and Switzerland.66 A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1.67 Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Uruguay and Zambia.68 ARTICLE 19 and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Human Rights Council: ARTICLE 19 and CIHRS Condemn Adoption of Resolution on Combating Defamationof Religions, March 27, 2009.


12/20



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

REPORT CARD:

TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN ORDEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

At the Tenth session of the Council, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Manfred Nowak, presented his

report which touched off a heated debate. At the request of Government of

France, Nowak presented his opinion as to whether or not the death penalty could

be defined as another form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment. Nowak suggested that the evolution of corporal punishment

in international law, which currently is defined as cruel, inhuman or degrading

punishment, could be applied to capital punishment. He also evaluated the

compatibility of international drug policies with human rights law to which he

suggested that refusing or restricting access to medical treatment and prevention

assistance could be defined as torturous. Nowak came to no conclusions in either

area, but recommended that the Council further study both issues.

A number of states, including members of the OIC and the Arab Group,responded negatively to Nowaks observations on capital punishment, which

they deemed outside his mandate.69Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) and

Sudan accused Nowak of violating the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures

Mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council70(Code of Conduct), and asserted,

along with Egypt, Singapore, and Iran, that the matter was related to state

sovereignty rather than human rights. However, the EU, Switzerland, Brazil,

New Zealand, and Thailand welcomed his observations on capital punishment

and the recommendation that the Council investigate the matter further.

As a result of the debate, Egypt removed itself as a co-sponsor of the

resolution on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment: the role and responsibility of medical and other health

personnel,71leaving Denmark as the sole sponsor. Egypt then called for

a vote on the paragraph referencing Nowaks report in order to remove it.

The paragraph was kept following a vote of 27 in favor, 10 against and 10

abstentions.72The full text was adopted by a vote of 34 in favor, none against,

and 13 abstentions. All the states that voted against the reference, including

members of the OIC,73China and India, abstained from the final vote along

with Senegal, Jordan and Ghana.

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION ORBELIEF AND ITS IMPACT ON ECONOMIC,SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

At the Tenth session, the Council adopted a resolution sponsored by the Czech

Republic (on behalf of the Councils EU members states, Canada, Switzerland

and 24 observer states74) entitled Discrimination based on religion or belief

and its impact on economic, social, and cultural rights by a vote of 22 states in

favor, one against, and 24 abstentions.75The resolution stressed that the right

to freedom of thought, conscience and religion appli[ed] equally to all people,

regardless of their religions or beliefs, and without any discrimination as to their

equal protection by the law. Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) called for the first

ever vote on the recurring resolution in response to a paragraph in the text that

stated that legal distinctions between religious communities could be potentially

discriminatory. After expessing their opposition to this point, Pakistan, Indonesia,

and Malaysia abstained from the vote along with all other OIC members and a

cross-regional group of states.76South Africa objected to the resolutions omission

of the justiciability of economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as its new focus

on discrimination based on religious beliefs rather than religious intolerance and

incitement to hatred.Based on these concerns, South Africa cast the only vote against

the resolution. Cuba abstained from the vote based on these shared concerns.

WORKING METHODS AND PROCEDURES

In its third year, states continued to debate the Councils working methods,

particularly related to special procedures. Efforts by a number of states to censor,

unduly influence, or undermine the independent work of both the special

procedure mandate holders and OHCHR continued much to the alarm of the

global human rights community. In particular, the attacks on special procedure

mandate holders spiked to new levels during the Tenth and Eleventh sessions. The

Eleventh session saw the consensual adoption of a resolution sponsored by Cuba

entitled System of Special Procedures, which seeks to pressure mandate holders

into strict interpretations of their mandates and reasserts the Code of Conduct.The High Commissioner also faced criticism by states for expressing her opinions

about situations of human rights around the globe, as well as for the geographic

representation of her offices staff.

69 Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), Saudi Arabia, Singapore, The Sudan, and Yemen (on behalf of the Arab Group).70 A/HRC/RES/5/2.71 A/HRC/10/L.3272 Abstained: Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Ghana, Jordan, Philippines, Russia Federation, Senegal, and South Africa. In favor: All WEOG members, along with Angola,Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Gabon, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia,Ukraine, Uruguay and Zambia.73 Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.74 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia , Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, NewZealand, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Sweden.75 A/HRC/10/L.34.76Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Gabon, Ghana, Madagascar, Philippines, and Zambia.


13/20

INDEPENDENCE OF THE SPECIAL PROCEDURES

The heavy focus on reporting by a number of special procedure mandate

holders during the Tenth and Eleventh sessions attracted renewed criticismby some states on the integrity of mandate holders and specific threats to

their independence. Egypt, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar led a

coordinated effort to harass and intimidate Special Rapporteurs whose expert

analyses countered these states particular interpretation and views on the

subject matter of their mandates. The Code of Conduct was repeatedly utilized

as the basis for political attacks on mandate holders and as a means to infringe

on their independence.

Of the 24 special procedures reports that were presented, the reports by Mr.

Frank La Rue Lewy, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection

of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Philip Alston, the

Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Mr.

Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment and punishment were met with particular condemnation.

As was previously discussed, Special Rapporteur Manfred Nowak was accused

of overstepping his mandate after presenting his report at the Tenth session.

Several states77asserted that his expressed view on capital punishment as a

possible form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment

infringed on the sovereignty of states.

La Rue Lewys first annual report to the Council at the Eleventh session was

sharply criticized by several states for excluding instances in which the abuse

of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious

discrimination as outlined in the Rapporteurs mandate.78 La Rue Lewy noted

in his report that existing international instruments already establish a specific

limit on freedom of expression and therefore, the right should be approached

with a positive view to defending itlimitations should not threaten the exercise

of the right itself.

Many OIC member states,79along with United Arab Emirates (on behalf of

the Arab Group) and Russia, argued that this declaration and his failure to

report on abuses of free speech signified an inadmissible attempt on the part

of the mandate holder to reinterpret his mandate. Algeria, Malaysia, Pakistan

(on behalf of the OIC) and Indonesia also accused La Rue Lewy of violating

the Code of Conduct for joining a declaration with regional experts expressing

the opinion that defamation of religions did not accord with international

standards regarding defamation, and encouraging the UN General Assembly

(GA) and the Council to desist from further adoption of statements supporting

this concept.80 During the debate, India also attempted to limit the independent

working methods of La Rue Lewy, and mandate holders in general, by

narrowly interpreting a provision of the Code of Conduct on the use of public

statements.81 Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) went as far as to threaten to strip

La Rue Lewy of his position if he deviated again from the OICs interpretation

of his mandate.

Later in the session, similar attacks were leveled against Philip Alston.

Following his critical report on extrajudicial killings and impunity in Kenya,

Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) questioned Alstons expertise, integrity

and sources of information, as well as accused the Special Rapporteur of

violating the Code of Conduct for allegedly plagiarizing the report of the

National Human Rights Commission of Kenya. Brazil also attacked Alstons

legitimacy and personal character, accusing him of acting with prejudice simply

for questioning the credibility of the official data on killings in Brazil.

Many WEOG member states,82along with Mexico, came to the defense of the

special rapporteurs, affirming that the Councils appointed experts should be

able to freely organize and exercise their work. They also argued that the Code

of Conduct outlines the freedom of mandate holders to comment upon human

rights questions relevant to their mandates, including resolutions previouslyadopted by the Council which, in their view, are contrary to established

principles of international human rights law. Italy added that expressing

expert findings and concerns publicly was a vital condition for the effective

implementation of a mandate and, contrary to the claims of some states,

compliance with the Code of Conduct. In addition, these states asserted that

while governments are free to disagree with the views expressed by mandate

holders in their reports, it is essential that they continue to cooperate and respect

the independence of the special rapporteurs in order to ensure their effectiveness

as a mechanism of the Council.

Following the intense debate surrounding the reports of the special rapporteurs,

Cuba introduced a resolution that sought to limit the autonomy and freedom of

expression of mandate holders under the pretext of Strengthening the systemof special procedures.83Specifically, the resolution aimed to restrict rapporteurs

from questioning their mandates. However, a backlash from states including

Canada, Chile and members of the EU eventually produced a compromise

removing the most restrictive elements of the resolution and including the

duty of states to cooperate with UN independent experts, thus enabling a

consensus.84

A group of 35 NGOs led by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

voiced strong criticism against the efforts by states to undermine the work of

the special procedures system through personal attacks and the intimidation of

rapporteurs.85 In an open letter to members of the Human Rights Council, the

NGOs wrote: We view these attacks and threats as fundamentally an attack

on and threat to the Council itself and they are severely eroding [its] legitimacy

and credibility. We appeal in the strongest of terms to act more responsibly and

respectfully in their relations with Special Procedures and refrain from all attempts,

by word or action, to interfere with the independence of mandate holders.

77 Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen (on behalf of the Arab Group).78 Paragraph 4 (d) of Resolution 7/36.79 Algeria, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.80 The declaration followed a meeting of the Global Forum on World Media Development held December 7-10, 2008 in Athens.81India argued that under Article 13 (a) of the Code of Conduct mandate holders are required to include the response of the concerned country with regards to public statements.This requirement has typically been understood to only apply to the special rapporteurs report recommendations and conclusions, not press releases.82Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), Sweden, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, France, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Australia, Luxembourg, Italy, Slovenia, Norway, Canada,the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States.83A/HRC/11/L.8.84Canada disassociated itself from the consensus citing that the resolution represented another attempt to stifle and intimidate the system of special procedures.85Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Open Letter to member states of the Human Rights Council, June 11, 2009.


14/20



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9



2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9

REPORT CARD:

INDEPENDENCE OF OHCHR

The third cycle of the Council also saw continued efforts to weaken the

independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR). As was seen in previous sessions, the issue of a balanced

geographic representation of OHCHR staff was again scrutinized in a

Tenth session resolution presented by Cuba and supported by a number of

members of the OIC and African Group. However, contrary to previous

resolutions, the text called for a regional rather than geographic balance of

the offices staff. High Commissioner Pillay noted that efforts to improve the

composition have already been initiated as a major priority for the office and

have subsequently shown progress. Pillay also pointed out that in terms of

gender representation, the office has an excellent balance; an achievement not

acknowledged by the concerned states.

In opposition to the resolution, Germany (on behalf of the EU), Canada

and Switzerland all asserted that it is not within the Councils purview toexert control over OHCHR and thus, it should refrain from interfering with

the work of the office. As a result, all EU member states, as well Canada,

Switzerland, Ukraine, Japan and Bosnia and Herzegovina voted against the

resolution while Chile and the Republic of Korea abstained. The resolution,86

adopted by a vote of 33 in favor, 12 against, and two abstentions, included a

provision requesting the High Commissioner to report progress on the matter

at the Thirteenth session.

At the Eleventh session, the High Commissioner was inappropriately criticized

by several states for expressing her opinion regarding the protection of human

rights for all persons regardless of sexual orientation. Pakistan (on behalf of

the OIC) and Algeria asserted that Pillay should only limit her comments to

those issues which enjoy universal agreement; a claim which directly contrasts

the mandate of the High Commissioner to play an active role in removing

the current obstacles, and in meeting the challenges to the full realization of

all human rights.87 In response to Pillays continued calls for an independent

inquiry into the violations in Sri Lanka, India implied that the High

Commissioner had superseded the authority of the Council in accordance

with the agenda of some states or unrepresentative or unaccountable

organizations. A number of WEOG states,88as well as Chile, Argentina,

and Israel, reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the independence

and integrity of OHCHR as an unfettered voice within the UN system. A

proposal by the Russian Federation to set up an inter-sessional working group

to discuss the Councils relationship with OHCHR was rejected by the EU

and Switzerland, which pointed out that the relationship is well defined, and

could only be affected by the GA since both mandates were established by GA

resolutions.

CONCLUSION

The Councils third year was characterized by increased efforts to effectively

address country situations and continued resistance to those efforts. Thiswas illustrated by a decrease in the number of soft consensus resolutions

and an increase in the number of country specific resolutions adopted after

a vote by the Human Rights Council. On the whole, the EU worked more

systematically with a cross-regional group of aligned, democratic states to

strengthen attention to serious human rights situations through the calling

of special sessions and support for Council mechanisms. These efforts were

consistently opposed by states such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba, which

often spoke on behalf of the African Group, OIC, and NAM to advance

troubling outcomes that failed to recognize ongoing human rights violations

and the obligations of states to protect their populations, or to provide for

accountability mechanisms, particularly in the cases of Sri Lanka, DRC and

Sudan. Russia, China, India and the Philippines maintained a similarly poor

record by voting against or abstaining on many critical country situations withfew exceptions. Many of these states repeatedly raised the issue of sovereignty

and non-interference to evade Council attention to particular human rights

situations and worked to restrict the ability of human rights experts to

independently address human rights violations.

This pattern held with the exception of OPT, an issue which exhibited an

almost mirror-like reversal of the positions taken by states on these principles.

The role reversal suggests that considerations beyond the promotion and

protection of human rights inform state behavior at the Council. Across all the

country situations considered by the Council this cycle, Chile and Switzerland

maintained the strongest and most consistent record of supporting the

Councils mandate of addressing situations of violations of human rights.89

However, the European Union, Canada, Argentina, and Mexico also

demonstrated a positive performance across issues.

The Brazilian governments inconsistent record over the year reflects the

overall challenges faced by the body as a whole, and by individual member

states that collectively determine the Councils political will to carry out

its mandate. In a June 15, 2009 statement, Conectas Human Rights, an

international NGO based in Brazil, critiqued Brazils justification for not

supporting measures to address human rights violations under the guise of

international cooperation, a position advanced by governments opposed to

strong actions by the Council.90

Exposure of the facts and their eventual configuration as human rights

violations is a legal and moral imperativeit is a prerequisite for establishing

any form of cooperation, Conectas asserted. It only makes sense to

cooperate when the violation, the responsibilities of the State and the need for

change are admitted. The Human Rights Council is not, nor should it become

86A/HRC/10/5.87A/RES/48/141 para 4(f).88Czech Republic (on behalf of the EU), United States, Ireland, Slovenia, Germany, Australia, UK, Switzerland, and Norway.89Operative paragraph 1 of UNGA Res. 60/251 stipulates that the Council should address violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations.90Conectas Direitos Humanos/Conectas Human Rights, Brazil at the UN Human Rights Council: Need To Review Positions and Overcome Ambiguities, June 15, 2009.


15/20

a settlement body for political disputes. Nor is its purpose to redefine global

geopolitics. [The Human Rights Council] represents hope that rights will be

guaranteed, particularly for the many victims who cannot rely on their own

State for the preservation of human dignity.

As the Council approaches its five-year review, the issue of addressing and

curbing human rights violations must be the central focus for states, one which

requires substantial efforts to ensure the Councils institutional ability to carry

out its mandate effectively.

20082009 CYCLE AT A GLANCE

The Council passed 121 resolutions and decisions, and three presidentia

statements.

Of those resolutions, decisions, and presidential statements, 18 dealt

with country specific situations such as the Democratic Republic of the

Congo, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar,

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Haiti, Cambodia, Somalia, Libe-

ria and Burundi. 48 other country-specific decisions adopted the outcomes

of the Universal Periodic Review.

69 percent of the Councils resolutions were adopted by consensus.

The Council extended two Special Procedures mandates the Work-ing Group of People of African descent and the Special Rapporteur on

the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous

products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights.

The Council extended the country mandates of Myanmar, North Korea

Haiti, Somalia, Cambodia, Burundi, Sudan, the Occupied Palestinian Ter-

ritory, and discontinued the Independent Expert on Liberia.

The Council created one new special procedures mandate the Inde-

pendent Expert in the field of cultural rights.

Six new special procedures mandate holders were appointed.

48 countries were reviewed during the Third, Fourth and Fifth sessions

of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism, a process by which

the human rights situation of all UN member states is reviewed during a

four-year cycle.

Four members were elected to the Human Rights Councils Advisory

Committee, a think tank of the Council that works at its discretion.


16/20

INDICATOR

Suppo

rtedthe

Specia

lSession

onthe

Eastof

theDe

mocratic

Repub

licofthe

Congo

SupportedSpecial

SessiononIsraeli

MilitaryAggressio

n

intheGazaStrip

VotedinFavorof

aRenewalofthe

Mandateonthe

Democratic

People'sRepublic

ofKorea

Supported

SpecialSession

onSriLanka

Votedaga

inst

no-action

on

Amendments

toSpecial

Sessiondraft

resolution

on

SriLanka

Votedagainst

theFinalSpecial

Session

ResolutiononSri

Lanka

VotedinFavorof

anAmendment

Creatingan

Independent

Expertinthe

mandateon

Sudan

Supported

SpecialSession

onthe

Global

Econom

icand

FinancialCrises

VotedAgainst

Resolutionon

Combating

Defamationof

Religion

Supportedthe

Independenceofthe

SpecialRapporteur

ontheRightto

Freedomo

fOpinion

andExpression

VotedinFavorof

Amendmentsto

strengthenthedraft

resolutiononthe

DemocraticRepublic

oftheCongo

Ang

ola

Arg

entina

Aze

rbaijan

Bah

rain

Ban

gladesh

Bolivia

Bos

niaandHerzegovina

Brazil

BurkinaFaso

Cam

eroon

Can

ada

Chile

China

Cub

a

Djib

outi

Egy

pt

France

Gab

on

Ger

many

Gha

na

India

Indonesia

Italy

Japan

Jordan

Madagascar

Malaysia

Mauritius

Mexico

Net

herlands

Nicaragua

Nig

eria

Pak

istan

Philippines

Qat

ar

Rep

ublicofKorea

Rus

sia

Sau

diArabia

Sen

egal

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sou

thAfrica

Switzerland

Ukr

aine

Uni

tedKingdom

Uru

guay

Zam

bia

ME

MBERSTATES

OB

SERVERSTATES

absen

t

8thSPECIAL

SESSION

9thSPECIAL

SESSION

10thREGULAR

SESSION

11thSPECIAL

SESSION

11thSPEC

IAL

SESSION

11thSPECIAL

SESSION

11thREGULAR

SESSION

10thSPECIAL

SESS

ION

10thREGULAR

SESSION

11thREGULAR

SESSION

10thREGULAR

SESSION

CO

UNCILSESSION


17/20Bhu

tan

Botswana

Bulgaria

Burundi

Colombia

Com

oros

Con

go

Cot

ed'Ivoire

Cyp

rus

Cze

chRepublic

Dem

ocraticPeople'sRepublicofKorea

Den

mark

Ecu

ador

Equ

atorialGuinea

Estonia

Finland

Geo

rgia

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

IranIreland

Isra

el

Ken

ya

Kuw

ait

Lao

s

Latvia

Libya

Lith

uania

Lux

embourg

Malaysia

Malta

Monaco

Morocco

Mozambique

Nep

al

Nig

er

New

Zealand

Nor

way

Pan

ama

Peru

Poland

Portugal

Rom

ania

Spa

in

SriLanka

Sud

an

Swe

den

Syria

Tan

zania

Tha

iland

The

FormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia

Tim

orLeste

Tun

isia

Turkey

Uga

nda

Uni

tedArabEmirates

USAVen

ezuela

Yem

en


18/20


19/20

ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY COALITION PROJECT

The Democracy Coalition Project is a nongovernmental organization that conducts research and advocacy relating to the advancement of democracy and hu-

man rights internationally, particularly through the UN Human Rights Council and other multilateral organs. Begun in June 2001 as an initiative of the Open

Society Institute, the Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) focuses its work on advocacy, research, and coalition-building toward the goal of democratic develop

ment as an essential element of international peace and human development.

DCP plays a leadership role in building an international coalition of organizations to monitor the foreign policies of governments as they relate to human right

and democracy promotion. DCP also works to encourage a more transparent and active Community of Democracies and an active Democracy Caucus at the

United Nations. As of July 2009, DCP enjoys consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC, which allows for more direct engagement with UN bodies

and mechanisms.

DCPS POLICY AGENDA INCLUDES:

Strengthening the work of the United Nations in the area of human rights and democratic development

Monitoring the foreign policies of governments as they relate to human rights and democracy promotion

Promoting reform and strengthening of the United Nations through civil society participation and coalition-building

Improving international responses to democratic crises

CONTACT US

Democracy Coalition Project

1120 19th Street, NW, 8th Floor

Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A.

Ph. +1 202.721.5630

Fax +1 202.721.5658

[email protected]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: PROJECT ASSISTANT:

Dokhi Fassihian Busi Langa

PROGRAM ASSOCIATE:

Tracy Baumgardt

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

Morton H. Halperin, President and Chairman

Theodore Piccone

Dokhi Fassihian

Robert Herman

David Birenbaum


20/20

Documents

2008-2009 Human Rights Council Report Card