Amnesty International's Secretary General has warned that the credibility of the UN Human Rights Council and of the entire UN is at stake.
Irene Khan, on the occasion of the Fourth Session of the UN Human Rights Council, said that the UN Human Rights Council was born out of an incomplete process of the reform of the United Nations. Speaking at a press conference in Geneva, Ms Khan said that one Council was created and another one was not fully reformed.
"The failures and frustrations of one aspect of reform should not be allowed to cast a shadow over the rest. Governments need to take a principled and constructive approach based on human rights in this Council - or they will undermine confidence in the entire UN and that is a dangerous, zero-sum game for all sides."
Ms. Khan said that it is very important for the UN system to restore confidence in itself. Describing the Human Rights Council is one of the key achievements of the UN reform process of 2005, Irene Khan said that, for the last nine months, its protection mandate has been put in cold storage while it focuses on its architecture.
"Architecture is important -- it is important that the Council gets it right. The Special Procedures form an important part of such architecture, which is why NGOs have launched a petition calling for their preservation."
She said that today's discussion may be a technical one on Special Procedures, but it has very important implications not just for the Council but for human rights and the UN. The Special Procedures -- the Human Rights Council's special rapporteurs and representatives, independent experts and working groups -- are among the most innovative, flexible and responsive tools created by the UN to promote and protect human rights.
For further information:
Read Irene Khan's full speech at the Geneva Press Conference
Sign the petition calling for the preservation of the Special Procedures: http://www.actforspecialprocedures.org
Friday, April 13, 2007
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Dr. Al-Mufti: Human Rights Council Resolution Quite Serious
Sunday 8 April 2007
Khartoum (Sudanvisiondaily)
The resolution issued lately in Geneva by the Human Rights Council about human rights situation in Darfur is alarmingly serious and needs to be cautiously dealt with. It provides findings for the UN resolution (1709) about entry of international forces and (1593) related to holding the International Criminal Court.
This was stated to Sudan Vision by the Director, Khartoum International Human Rights Centre, Dr. Ahmed Al-Mufti.
He pointed that the Geneva resolution speaks about armed attacks against civilians and destruction of villages. This comes without any hint at efforts exerted by the Government of Sudan in this respect. The resolution hints also at human rights and humanitarian law violations.
Dr. Al-Mufti stated that the committee formed according to this resolution is formed of seven United Nations mechanisms which are always present in the United Nations. This means it is impossible to resist any decision or recommendation arrived at by this group, by the Sudanese government. The decision will also deprive the government of any opportunity for defence against any decisions or recommendations made. This committee, unlike the Judie Williams committee or the international committee which came before to inspect situations in Darfur and recommended referring the issue to the ICC in The Hague, this committee is not on “Ad Hoc Committee”.
Dr. Al-Mufti stated that issuing the resolution through conciliatory opinions, means that the country concerned will abandon its right to vote in return for the resolution text being acceptable to it.
He added that this is a well-known tactical procedure in international gatherings for human rights. Sudan had used this procedure before.As for the Geneva Resolution, it did not include the government’s point of view towards rejecting international forces.
Khartoum (Sudanvisiondaily)
The resolution issued lately in Geneva by the Human Rights Council about human rights situation in Darfur is alarmingly serious and needs to be cautiously dealt with. It provides findings for the UN resolution (1709) about entry of international forces and (1593) related to holding the International Criminal Court.
This was stated to Sudan Vision by the Director, Khartoum International Human Rights Centre, Dr. Ahmed Al-Mufti.
He pointed that the Geneva resolution speaks about armed attacks against civilians and destruction of villages. This comes without any hint at efforts exerted by the Government of Sudan in this respect. The resolution hints also at human rights and humanitarian law violations.
Dr. Al-Mufti stated that the committee formed according to this resolution is formed of seven United Nations mechanisms which are always present in the United Nations. This means it is impossible to resist any decision or recommendation arrived at by this group, by the Sudanese government. The decision will also deprive the government of any opportunity for defence against any decisions or recommendations made. This committee, unlike the Judie Williams committee or the international committee which came before to inspect situations in Darfur and recommended referring the issue to the ICC in The Hague, this committee is not on “Ad Hoc Committee”.
Dr. Al-Mufti stated that issuing the resolution through conciliatory opinions, means that the country concerned will abandon its right to vote in return for the resolution text being acceptable to it.
He added that this is a well-known tactical procedure in international gatherings for human rights. Sudan had used this procedure before.As for the Geneva Resolution, it did not include the government’s point of view towards rejecting international forces.
U.N. Rights Council vs. Freedom
Source:http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?5d187e2d-fffe-4d8e-8ffb-dae0d8121001
By Brett D. Schaefer, 4/3/2007 10:58:29 AM
The closer one observes the United Nations, the more one notices how disconnected it is from reality -- especially when debating human rights. Its bias and politicization was on full display recently at the fourth session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which saw continued attacks on Israel and intolerance of criticism.
In its first year, the HRC has proven just as feckless in confronting human-rights abuses and as prone to politically motivated attacks as its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. And the commission's record was so bad, even former Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted it "cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole" and called for its replacement.
In a disheartening repeat of one of the old commission's worst failings, the HRC's first "special session" last summer on Israel adopted a one-sided resolution condemning Israel and ignoring provocations by Palestinian-armed groups.
This became a pattern: In its first three sessions, the council adopted 10 resolutions addressing human-rights concerns in specific countries -- eight of which harshly condemned Israel. The council's first three "special sessions" on extraordinary human-rights issues also targeted Israel.
Ongoing repression in Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe is ignored. Only under immense pressure from the media, human-rights groups and Western governments did the HRC address the world's most urgent human-rights crisis, the genocide in Darfur. Even then, a number of member states opposed a "special session" on Sudan and successfully watered down two resolutions regarding the Darfur situation.
The fourth session of the Human Rights Council, under way in Geneva, is following this profoundly disappointing record. The HRC's expert on human rights in the Palestinian territories accused Israel of conducting an apartheid policy against the Palestinians and of extensive human-rights crimes. Three new resolutions condemning Israel are expected.
No other state receives such scrutiny. Indeed, it was a struggle for states concerned about Darfur to even get the HRC to hear a presentation by the council's own "High-Level Mission" established last December to assess the situation in Darfur. Don't hold your breath waiting for the council to act on this report or condemn Sudan for refusing to cooperate with the High-Level Mission.
Such hypocrisy, though, is to be expected from a council that includes Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other states with questionable commitment to human rights. However, one would hope a U.N. body dedicated to promoting human rights would cleave more closely to those ideals during its deliberations. Sadly, this is not the case.
In reaction to the blatant bias against Israel, Hillel Neuer of the nongovernmental organization United Nations Watch in Geneva expressed dismay and challenged the council to live up to the ideals of those who created the original Commission on Human Rights in 1946 and made promoting human rights a central U.N. purpose:
"Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the council pronounced, and what has it decided? Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.
One might say, in Harry Truman's words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council. But that would be inaccurate. This council has done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel."
Mr. Neuer criticized the hypocrisy of the Council, noting that "the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims. But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?" Judging by the council's refusal to condemn Palestinian atrocities, the answer is "no."
One would expect many council members to disagree or object to Mr. Neuer's statement. However, the Council President went further. He chastised Mr. Neuer. In an unprecedented move, he said he would not thank Mr. Neuer for his comments -- a customary measure that follows every statement before the HRC, regardless of merit. He further threatened to strike Mr. Neuer's comments from the record.
Considering the hostile, insulting and dishonest earlier statements by states like Burma, North Korea and Sudan, it is clear that free speech is a privilege denied human-rights groups that confront the council over its poor record -- but strongly protected for regimes that abuse human rights.
So much for dispelling the "shadow" Kofi Annan rightly decried.
Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). He was an observer at the fourth Session of the Human Rights Council. This first appeared in the Washington Times
By Brett D. Schaefer, 4/3/2007 10:58:29 AM
The closer one observes the United Nations, the more one notices how disconnected it is from reality -- especially when debating human rights. Its bias and politicization was on full display recently at the fourth session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which saw continued attacks on Israel and intolerance of criticism.
In its first year, the HRC has proven just as feckless in confronting human-rights abuses and as prone to politically motivated attacks as its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. And the commission's record was so bad, even former Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted it "cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole" and called for its replacement.
In a disheartening repeat of one of the old commission's worst failings, the HRC's first "special session" last summer on Israel adopted a one-sided resolution condemning Israel and ignoring provocations by Palestinian-armed groups.
This became a pattern: In its first three sessions, the council adopted 10 resolutions addressing human-rights concerns in specific countries -- eight of which harshly condemned Israel. The council's first three "special sessions" on extraordinary human-rights issues also targeted Israel.
Ongoing repression in Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe is ignored. Only under immense pressure from the media, human-rights groups and Western governments did the HRC address the world's most urgent human-rights crisis, the genocide in Darfur. Even then, a number of member states opposed a "special session" on Sudan and successfully watered down two resolutions regarding the Darfur situation.
The fourth session of the Human Rights Council, under way in Geneva, is following this profoundly disappointing record. The HRC's expert on human rights in the Palestinian territories accused Israel of conducting an apartheid policy against the Palestinians and of extensive human-rights crimes. Three new resolutions condemning Israel are expected.
No other state receives such scrutiny. Indeed, it was a struggle for states concerned about Darfur to even get the HRC to hear a presentation by the council's own "High-Level Mission" established last December to assess the situation in Darfur. Don't hold your breath waiting for the council to act on this report or condemn Sudan for refusing to cooperate with the High-Level Mission.
Such hypocrisy, though, is to be expected from a council that includes Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other states with questionable commitment to human rights. However, one would hope a U.N. body dedicated to promoting human rights would cleave more closely to those ideals during its deliberations. Sadly, this is not the case.
In reaction to the blatant bias against Israel, Hillel Neuer of the nongovernmental organization United Nations Watch in Geneva expressed dismay and challenged the council to live up to the ideals of those who created the original Commission on Human Rights in 1946 and made promoting human rights a central U.N. purpose:
"Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the council pronounced, and what has it decided? Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.
One might say, in Harry Truman's words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council. But that would be inaccurate. This council has done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel."
Mr. Neuer criticized the hypocrisy of the Council, noting that "the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims. But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?" Judging by the council's refusal to condemn Palestinian atrocities, the answer is "no."
One would expect many council members to disagree or object to Mr. Neuer's statement. However, the Council President went further. He chastised Mr. Neuer. In an unprecedented move, he said he would not thank Mr. Neuer for his comments -- a customary measure that follows every statement before the HRC, regardless of merit. He further threatened to strike Mr. Neuer's comments from the record.
Considering the hostile, insulting and dishonest earlier statements by states like Burma, North Korea and Sudan, it is clear that free speech is a privilege denied human-rights groups that confront the council over its poor record -- but strongly protected for regimes that abuse human rights.
So much for dispelling the "shadow" Kofi Annan rightly decried.
Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). He was an observer at the fourth Session of the Human Rights Council. This first appeared in the Washington Times
UN Human Rights Council criticized over resolution condemning religous intolerance
Freedom House Condemns Passage of UN Resolution Supporting Limits on Free Speech
Full Story:
[Freedom House/IFEX statement]
http://reclaimthemedia.org/communications_rights/un_human_rights_council_critic=5083
A resolution justifying suppression of unpopular speech, adopted March 30 by the UN Human Rights Council under the guise of discouraging "defamation of religion," constitutes a perversion of the language and institutions hitherto used to protect human rights, Freedom House said today. That so many democratic states abstained or voted in favor is a cause for further alarm, the organization declared.
The resolution, sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), condemns defamation of religions in general though it mentions only Islam specifically. Presented as a measure to protect the religious sensibilities of Muslims, the resolution asserts that freedom of expression "should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law." The resolution passed the council 24-14, with nine abstentions.
"This resolution condones state punishment for public utterances that authoritarian governments will claim defame religion," said Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director of Freedom House. "It is utterly inappropriate for the Human Rights Council to justify censorship and the stifling of dissenting voices."
Last February, the OIC tried to inject a similar "anti-blasphemy" provision into the resolution establishing the Human Rights Council, but failed.
"That the resolution was not only reintroduced, but has now actually been passed by an absolute majority of the Council," said Windsor, "will prompt reasonable observers to wonder if the Council has fallen through the looking glass of 'Alice in Wonderland'."
"Citizens of just 14 democracies among the 47 members of the Council can be proud today that their governments had the clarity of vision to vote No," said Ms. Windsor. "Far too many democracies abstained or voted in favor of the ignominious proposition. Guatemalans, in particular, should be proud that theirs was the only one of eight Latin American countries to cast a vote for free expression. Five others abstained, and - alarmingly - Mexico joined with Cuba to vote yes for suppression of free speech."
"It is not surprising or interesting that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Azerbaijan would vote for such a proposition," she continued. "It is a disappointment that democracies such as Argentina, Brazil, Ghana, India, Nigeria, and Uruguay would abstain. That democracies such as Mali, Mexico, the Philippines and South Africa would vote in favor of such an odious declaration is appalling. Today they have earned the shame their citizens must feel."
Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world.
Full Story:
[Freedom House/IFEX statement]
http://reclaimthemedia.org/communications_rights/un_human_rights_council_critic=5083
A resolution justifying suppression of unpopular speech, adopted March 30 by the UN Human Rights Council under the guise of discouraging "defamation of religion," constitutes a perversion of the language and institutions hitherto used to protect human rights, Freedom House said today. That so many democratic states abstained or voted in favor is a cause for further alarm, the organization declared.
The resolution, sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), condemns defamation of religions in general though it mentions only Islam specifically. Presented as a measure to protect the religious sensibilities of Muslims, the resolution asserts that freedom of expression "should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law." The resolution passed the council 24-14, with nine abstentions.
"This resolution condones state punishment for public utterances that authoritarian governments will claim defame religion," said Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director of Freedom House. "It is utterly inappropriate for the Human Rights Council to justify censorship and the stifling of dissenting voices."
Last February, the OIC tried to inject a similar "anti-blasphemy" provision into the resolution establishing the Human Rights Council, but failed.
"That the resolution was not only reintroduced, but has now actually been passed by an absolute majority of the Council," said Windsor, "will prompt reasonable observers to wonder if the Council has fallen through the looking glass of 'Alice in Wonderland'."
"Citizens of just 14 democracies among the 47 members of the Council can be proud today that their governments had the clarity of vision to vote No," said Ms. Windsor. "Far too many democracies abstained or voted in favor of the ignominious proposition. Guatemalans, in particular, should be proud that theirs was the only one of eight Latin American countries to cast a vote for free expression. Five others abstained, and - alarmingly - Mexico joined with Cuba to vote yes for suppression of free speech."
"It is not surprising or interesting that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Azerbaijan would vote for such a proposition," she continued. "It is a disappointment that democracies such as Argentina, Brazil, Ghana, India, Nigeria, and Uruguay would abstain. That democracies such as Mali, Mexico, the Philippines and South Africa would vote in favor of such an odious declaration is appalling. Today they have earned the shame their citizens must feel."
Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world.
'What About The Rights Of Israelis!'
by Marc Shoffman in Geneva - Thursday 5th of April 2007
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=6006
The United Nations is neglecting other areas of human rights because it is too obsessed with the Palestinian territories, Israel’s Ambassador to the Human Rights Council said this week.
Itzhak Levanon expressed anger at the UN in Geneva after it passed two resolutions criticising Israel’s treatment
The United Nations Human Rights Council agreed to resend a delegation to the Palestinian territories and called on Israel to comply with investigators. But Levanon described the ruling as “selective” and “biased.”
It comes after UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard presented a report to the UN last month criticising the killing of 19 Palewstinian civilians in Beit Hanoun last November. The resolution calls on Israel to “end its military operations in the occupied Palestinian territory, abide scrupulously by the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and refrain from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians.”
Levanon criticised the Council for failing to consider how the Israelis have to live. He told TJ that there is no point in complying with the demands.
He said: “I don't see the benefit of discussing the issue. We had our own investigation on Beit Hanoun, we have our own values, the Jewish values. We reached a conclusion and apologised, why do I need people to come and check what I have already done, if they don't believe me then it doesn't make any difference.
“The UN took a special session, a selective step, to see what happened. Beit Hanoun and Gaza do not exist in a vacuum, it was a direct result of terrorists. Is there no Israeli suffering?
“If they send a mission to examine both sides I would accept it. But they took a one sided resolution.”
He accused Arab countries of trying to hijack the Council, “The human rights situation is very bad. Darfur is sometimes discussed because there is a genocide. But there are other places, Chechnya, Tibet, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria - all these have human rights problems and daily persecutions that must be discussed. The fact that Israel has excavated something to make it safer, this is not the place to discuss it.
“The Council is letting down all human rights, everyone should be under review, Israel, the UK, and Arab states, everybody without any exception. If you would like to reach a higher level of human rights you have to deal with it, but Muslim countries are trying to hijack the agenda.”
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=6006
The United Nations is neglecting other areas of human rights because it is too obsessed with the Palestinian territories, Israel’s Ambassador to the Human Rights Council said this week.
Itzhak Levanon expressed anger at the UN in Geneva after it passed two resolutions criticising Israel’s treatment
The United Nations Human Rights Council agreed to resend a delegation to the Palestinian territories and called on Israel to comply with investigators. But Levanon described the ruling as “selective” and “biased.”
It comes after UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard presented a report to the UN last month criticising the killing of 19 Palewstinian civilians in Beit Hanoun last November. The resolution calls on Israel to “end its military operations in the occupied Palestinian territory, abide scrupulously by the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and refrain from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians.”
Levanon criticised the Council for failing to consider how the Israelis have to live. He told TJ that there is no point in complying with the demands.
He said: “I don't see the benefit of discussing the issue. We had our own investigation on Beit Hanoun, we have our own values, the Jewish values. We reached a conclusion and apologised, why do I need people to come and check what I have already done, if they don't believe me then it doesn't make any difference.
“The UN took a special session, a selective step, to see what happened. Beit Hanoun and Gaza do not exist in a vacuum, it was a direct result of terrorists. Is there no Israeli suffering?
“If they send a mission to examine both sides I would accept it. But they took a one sided resolution.”
He accused Arab countries of trying to hijack the Council, “The human rights situation is very bad. Darfur is sometimes discussed because there is a genocide. But there are other places, Chechnya, Tibet, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria - all these have human rights problems and daily persecutions that must be discussed. The fact that Israel has excavated something to make it safer, this is not the place to discuss it.
“The Council is letting down all human rights, everyone should be under review, Israel, the UK, and Arab states, everybody without any exception. If you would like to reach a higher level of human rights you have to deal with it, but Muslim countries are trying to hijack the agenda.”
HR Council to Resume Organization
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BE9CD7C8F-9000-46CF-86CA-C3463901A324%7D&language=EN
Geneva, Apr 6 (Prensa Latina) The UN Human Rights Council confirmed on Friday, shortly before beginning a break for April s religious celebrations, that it will restart negotiations on Tuesday for its own institutional shaping.
The new UN branch, according to the resolution approved by the General Assembly, should conclude that process before June 18, and its permanent working commissions are working hard toward that objective.
The issue is to achieve consensus about its working methods and forms, which allow the authority to comply with its duties without falling into the vices that put paid to its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission.
That commission yielded to the pressures of the United States and its allies for implementation of selectivity and double standards that turned it into an instrument of the White House s aggressive foreign policy against the southern countries.
The four commissions, designated to represent the 47 current Council members, are trying to achieve consensus about essential issues such as a temporary universal revision of the human rights situation.
This point seeks to achieve equal participation of all in the analysis of any incident or denunciation, of course including the countries affected, and avoiding injustice or political manipulation when deliberating.
The working groups are also making efforts to define a fair procedure to formulate and treat denunciations about any crisis in the area of prerogatives of populations, social sectors, or individuals.
May and June will be important for the Council because, besides concluding that process, it should renew almost a third of its members and develop its fifth ordinary session before the new members assume their posts.
hr ccs iom jrr
Geneva, Apr 6 (Prensa Latina) The UN Human Rights Council confirmed on Friday, shortly before beginning a break for April s religious celebrations, that it will restart negotiations on Tuesday for its own institutional shaping.
The new UN branch, according to the resolution approved by the General Assembly, should conclude that process before June 18, and its permanent working commissions are working hard toward that objective.
The issue is to achieve consensus about its working methods and forms, which allow the authority to comply with its duties without falling into the vices that put paid to its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission.
That commission yielded to the pressures of the United States and its allies for implementation of selectivity and double standards that turned it into an instrument of the White House s aggressive foreign policy against the southern countries.
The four commissions, designated to represent the 47 current Council members, are trying to achieve consensus about essential issues such as a temporary universal revision of the human rights situation.
This point seeks to achieve equal participation of all in the analysis of any incident or denunciation, of course including the countries affected, and avoiding injustice or political manipulation when deliberating.
The working groups are also making efforts to define a fair procedure to formulate and treat denunciations about any crisis in the area of prerogatives of populations, social sectors, or individuals.
May and June will be important for the Council because, besides concluding that process, it should renew almost a third of its members and develop its fifth ordinary session before the new members assume their posts.
hr ccs iom jrr
‘Muslim states should show human rights accountability’
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C04%5C07%5Cstory_7-4-2007_pg7_50
Saturday, April 07, 2007
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The passage of an OIC-backed resolution last week by the UN’s Human Rights Council “urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion” has been criticised because its sponsors have shown little accountability with respect to their own violations of most human rights.
Ali Eteraz, a human rights lawyer, wrote on the popular Huffington Post weblog that the demand “makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam”. European nations, Canada, Japan and South Korea all opposed the move.
He wrote that such a resolution might have been worth supporting had the Muslim member states involved demonstrated even an atom’s worth of what Saudi Arabia considered freedom of religion a capital crime.
Pakistan considers blasphemy a capital offence, where it is selectively enforced on Ahmadis and Christians. Indonesia, too, considers blasphemy a capital offence, and enforces it selectively on religious minorities.
Western liberals generally shy away from calling Muslim states out on their human rights duplicity.
According to Eteraz, other Muslims take the position that they are not in a position to extol human rights norms upon Muslim states given their own violations. “Yet others simply abstain from speaking out against violence and repression in Muslim states because we do not wish to provide the right wing hawks with more justification for creating war. This reluctance is reasonable. However, the reluctance degenerates to silence, which then allows our right wing peers to appropriate and hijack the entire human rights project. Once appropriated, the right wing then determines which ‘solutions’ to apply. Most of their solutions rely on force. Liberals need a way to call out Muslim states on their human rights hypocrisy while simultaneously creating a culture of cooperation and respect.”
Eteraz suggested that Muslims should recognise that political freedom was more important than the political model a country employed. Obsessing over whether a country is a democracy or a monarchy is not as important as whether citizens have basic rights such as life, liberty, freedom of the press and assembly and infrastructure. These rights enable democracy and are not a by-product of democracy. “A state that does not have the infrastructure to provide for its citizens’ material needs, even if it turns democratic, will be quickly subverted,” he said. He called for recognition of the fact that the so-called Muslim states were not necessarily “Islamic”. The majority of the laws in the Muslim world are an amalgam of European civil code, Shariah and Anglo-Saxon common law. As such, fixing religious law is neither sufficient nor necessary. The most important element of human rights reform in the Muslim world is via legislation or regulation, not clerics.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The passage of an OIC-backed resolution last week by the UN’s Human Rights Council “urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion” has been criticised because its sponsors have shown little accountability with respect to their own violations of most human rights.
Ali Eteraz, a human rights lawyer, wrote on the popular Huffington Post weblog that the demand “makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam”. European nations, Canada, Japan and South Korea all opposed the move.
He wrote that such a resolution might have been worth supporting had the Muslim member states involved demonstrated even an atom’s worth of what Saudi Arabia considered freedom of religion a capital crime.
Pakistan considers blasphemy a capital offence, where it is selectively enforced on Ahmadis and Christians. Indonesia, too, considers blasphemy a capital offence, and enforces it selectively on religious minorities.
Western liberals generally shy away from calling Muslim states out on their human rights duplicity.
According to Eteraz, other Muslims take the position that they are not in a position to extol human rights norms upon Muslim states given their own violations. “Yet others simply abstain from speaking out against violence and repression in Muslim states because we do not wish to provide the right wing hawks with more justification for creating war. This reluctance is reasonable. However, the reluctance degenerates to silence, which then allows our right wing peers to appropriate and hijack the entire human rights project. Once appropriated, the right wing then determines which ‘solutions’ to apply. Most of their solutions rely on force. Liberals need a way to call out Muslim states on their human rights hypocrisy while simultaneously creating a culture of cooperation and respect.”
Eteraz suggested that Muslims should recognise that political freedom was more important than the political model a country employed. Obsessing over whether a country is a democracy or a monarchy is not as important as whether citizens have basic rights such as life, liberty, freedom of the press and assembly and infrastructure. These rights enable democracy and are not a by-product of democracy. “A state that does not have the infrastructure to provide for its citizens’ material needs, even if it turns democratic, will be quickly subverted,” he said. He called for recognition of the fact that the so-called Muslim states were not necessarily “Islamic”. The majority of the laws in the Muslim world are an amalgam of European civil code, Shariah and Anglo-Saxon common law. As such, fixing religious law is neither sufficient nor necessary. The most important element of human rights reform in the Muslim world is via legislation or regulation, not clerics.
Human Rights Council still lacks credibility
BY HARRIS O. SCHOENBERG
http://www.stljewishlight.com/commentaries/288569735362733.php
On the eve of the United Nations Human Rights Council's latest session, which opened March 12, the United States announced it would not seek election in May for membership in the council.
This decision was regrettable because it would have been important to demonstrate that Washington has tried to make the council work.
At the same time, it should be kept in mind that the problem is less the elections than the council's flawed mandate. That mandate was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in March 2006 with the support of then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Annan and these human-rights groups supported the mandate even though the General Assembly had thrown out the safeguards that Annan and some non-governmental organizations had proposed for keeping human-rights violators off the council.
As a result, 21 of the 47 members elected last May are rated by Freedom House as human-rights violators. Some are rated the worst of the worst.
The Asian and African regional groups, which hold a majority of seats on the council, are dominated by these violators and their supporters, who make a mockery of the council's mission because they are interested only in condemning Israel.
They have already done this eight times since the council started work last June, and they are expected to condemn Israel again at this month's session.
The council has condemned no other state, not even the Sudan for genocide in Darfur, where an estimated 400,000 people have been slaughtered and 2.5 million made homeless.
A report this week by a high-level mission is likely to be buried. That report declares that the United Nations "has proven inadequate and ineffective" in dealing with the Sudanese government, which "has manifestly failed to protect the population of Darfur from large-scale international crimes and has itself orchestrated and participated in these crimes."
Governments committing gross violations of human rights routinely send representatives to council sessions to stifle criticism or denounce the actions of states with far better records. For example, Iran sent the man responsible for the torture and murder of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian journalist, to represent it at the council's inaugural session last June, and this week it sent Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, the person responsible for organizing the December Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran.
These violators are circulating a proposal to abolish many of the council's special rapporteurs, who produce reports on critical issues such as summary executions and disappearances, as well as the human-rights conditions in several countries where abuses have been reported. The one rapporteur whose mandate would be continued reports on alleged violations by Israel.
Another council program also is in trouble. This is the Universal Periodic Review of the human-rights records of U.N. member states. Human-rights violators are trying to sabotage the review by making it a peer review or watering down the criteria.
It was just two years ago, in March 2005, that Annan proposed replacing the discredited Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council. Annan argued that not only had the commission lost credibility because it had been taken over by human-rights violators, but it was also undermining the credibility of the United Nations as a whole.
Indeed, the chair of the commission had passed over the years from Eleanor Roosevelt to an ambassador from Libya, a state that supported international terrorism and had a fearsome record of human-rights abuses.
However, when the secretary-general, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch failed to stand up for the safeguards that would have made the council an improvement, only U.S. Ambassador John Bolton had the courage to declare that the proposed mandate was flawed.
He was supported by the major liberal and conservative newspapers in New York and Washington, which portrayed it as "The Shame of the United Nations" and "a moral disaster waiting to happen." But the United States was joined by only three other countries in voting against the seriously flawed document — Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau.
To fix the mandate, certain changes are required. First, the council should be reduced in size to that of the original commission, which had only 18 members.
Second, council members, while elected by states, should be distinguished human-rights champions, like original commission members Roosevelt, Rene Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon and Carlos Romulo of the Philippines.
In proposing the demise of the commission and its replacement by the council, Annan took a revolutionary step. But until the human-rights violators are swept out of the council and replaced by human-rights champions, his human-rights revolution will remain unfinished and the U.N.'s reputation will continue to suffer.
Harris O. Schoenberg serves as president of U.N. Reform Advocates, honorary chairman of the U.N. NGO Human Rights Committee and adjunct professor of human rights at New York University.
http://www.stljewishlight.com/commentaries/288569735362733.php
On the eve of the United Nations Human Rights Council's latest session, which opened March 12, the United States announced it would not seek election in May for membership in the council.
This decision was regrettable because it would have been important to demonstrate that Washington has tried to make the council work.
At the same time, it should be kept in mind that the problem is less the elections than the council's flawed mandate. That mandate was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in March 2006 with the support of then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Annan and these human-rights groups supported the mandate even though the General Assembly had thrown out the safeguards that Annan and some non-governmental organizations had proposed for keeping human-rights violators off the council.
As a result, 21 of the 47 members elected last May are rated by Freedom House as human-rights violators. Some are rated the worst of the worst.
The Asian and African regional groups, which hold a majority of seats on the council, are dominated by these violators and their supporters, who make a mockery of the council's mission because they are interested only in condemning Israel.
They have already done this eight times since the council started work last June, and they are expected to condemn Israel again at this month's session.
The council has condemned no other state, not even the Sudan for genocide in Darfur, where an estimated 400,000 people have been slaughtered and 2.5 million made homeless.
A report this week by a high-level mission is likely to be buried. That report declares that the United Nations "has proven inadequate and ineffective" in dealing with the Sudanese government, which "has manifestly failed to protect the population of Darfur from large-scale international crimes and has itself orchestrated and participated in these crimes."
Governments committing gross violations of human rights routinely send representatives to council sessions to stifle criticism or denounce the actions of states with far better records. For example, Iran sent the man responsible for the torture and murder of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian journalist, to represent it at the council's inaugural session last June, and this week it sent Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, the person responsible for organizing the December Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran.
These violators are circulating a proposal to abolish many of the council's special rapporteurs, who produce reports on critical issues such as summary executions and disappearances, as well as the human-rights conditions in several countries where abuses have been reported. The one rapporteur whose mandate would be continued reports on alleged violations by Israel.
Another council program also is in trouble. This is the Universal Periodic Review of the human-rights records of U.N. member states. Human-rights violators are trying to sabotage the review by making it a peer review or watering down the criteria.
It was just two years ago, in March 2005, that Annan proposed replacing the discredited Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council. Annan argued that not only had the commission lost credibility because it had been taken over by human-rights violators, but it was also undermining the credibility of the United Nations as a whole.
Indeed, the chair of the commission had passed over the years from Eleanor Roosevelt to an ambassador from Libya, a state that supported international terrorism and had a fearsome record of human-rights abuses.
However, when the secretary-general, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch failed to stand up for the safeguards that would have made the council an improvement, only U.S. Ambassador John Bolton had the courage to declare that the proposed mandate was flawed.
He was supported by the major liberal and conservative newspapers in New York and Washington, which portrayed it as "The Shame of the United Nations" and "a moral disaster waiting to happen." But the United States was joined by only three other countries in voting against the seriously flawed document — Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau.
To fix the mandate, certain changes are required. First, the council should be reduced in size to that of the original commission, which had only 18 members.
Second, council members, while elected by states, should be distinguished human-rights champions, like original commission members Roosevelt, Rene Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon and Carlos Romulo of the Philippines.
In proposing the demise of the commission and its replacement by the council, Annan took a revolutionary step. But until the human-rights violators are swept out of the council and replaced by human-rights champions, his human-rights revolution will remain unfinished and the U.N.'s reputation will continue to suffer.
Harris O. Schoenberg serves as president of U.N. Reform Advocates, honorary chairman of the U.N. NGO Human Rights Committee and adjunct professor of human rights at New York University.
Islamists turn UN human rights body into a laughing stock
Source: http://www.secularism.org.uk/78801.html
Last week the United Nations’ Human Rights Council condemned “defamation” of religion, and called upon member states to ban literature and other materials containing “racist or xenophobic ideas” that might lead to hostility against religious groups – although Islam is the only religion mentioned in the resolution.
Islamic states joined with Mexico, the Russian Federation and China in supporting the measure which passed 24–14. There were nine abstentions. The Human Rights Council resolution expressed concern at “negative stereotyping” of religion, and excoriated “attempts to identify Islam with terrorism.”
The Council delegate from Pakistan, who also represented the Organization of the Islamic Conference, declared: “The resolution is tabled in the expectation that it will compel the international community to acknowledge and address the disturbing phenomena of the defamation of religions, especially Islam.”
News observers suggested that the resolution grew out of violent protests by Islamists over the Danish cartoons published in September 2005 depicting the prophet Mohammed. Muslims, backed by Christian, Jewish and other religious groups, condemned the drawings and called for anti-blasphemy legislation. In 1989, similar protests spread through the Arab world, Asia, Europe and even the United States over the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses.
These incidents have fuelled a debate over the status of religion in modern society, and raised calls for the return of blasphemy statutes aimed at protecting religious groups from “hurtful” or defamatory remarks of any kind. Proponents debate how far such legislation should go, however. The U.N. resolution only mentions Islam, but representatives of other faiths have called for similar protection of all religions.
Indeed, some Human Rights Council member representatives expressed disappointment that the resolution did not explicitly cover “defamation” against all religions. According to a U.N. press release, delegate Carlo Alvarado from Guatemala said that his nation “condemned defamation of religions and any practice incompatible with the preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms,” but grumbled that the draft resolution “was unbalanced and gave importance to one single religion over all others.”
Similar sentiments were voiced by Munu Mahawar of India who repeated the claim that the resolution focused only on one religion, while “all religions were facing the problem of defamation in one form or another.”
None of the representatives took a position aggressively defending the virtues of free expression and secularism. The nearest we got to this came from Birgitta Siefker-Eberle of Germany who said that an “on-going dialogue” was the best way of resolving differences, and that it was problematic to reconcile “defamation” with discrimination.
Representatives of 24 countries voted in favour of the controversial resolution: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
There were 14 opposing states: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Abstaining from the vote were: Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.
Roy Brown, the main spokesperson for the International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a statement to the Commission, said: “On 14 March the spokesperson for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference referred to what she described as ‘a dire need to fill the judicial vacuum of deficiency in dealing with the question of respect for religions…’ and asked for ‘effective and legally binding measures for combating defamation of all religions and incitement to racial and religious violence’.
“This however is to confuse two quite separate issues: defamation of religion, and incitement to violence. All of us, Mr President, must condemn incitement to racial and religious violence, and in this connexion we hope that the OIC will condemn the death threats made last week by Islamic extremists against the Bengali writer Taslima Nasrin.
“Mr President, no-one has a duty to respect any religion. Furthermore, lack of respect for a belief should not be confused with hatred of the believer. It is the believer that merits protection, not the belief.
“And how are we to define defamation? Are we no longer to be permitted to condemn misogyny, homophobia, or calls to kill – if they are made in the name of religion? Are we obliged to respect religious practices that we find offensive? Is lack of respect for such practices to be considered a crime? Are ideas, are religions now to be accorded human rights? Surely, when religion invades the public domain it becomes an ideology like any other, and must be open to criticism as such. To deny the claims of religion is neither defamation nor blasphemy.
“Finally, one can only express dismay at the demonising of European secularism by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism. He clearly fails to understand that secularism – that is, state neutrality in matters of religion and belief – is not an expression of intolerance but a guarantee of religious freedom for all, a defence of the values on which our human rights are based, the very values that this Council should be seeking to protect.”
Last week the United Nations’ Human Rights Council condemned “defamation” of religion, and called upon member states to ban literature and other materials containing “racist or xenophobic ideas” that might lead to hostility against religious groups – although Islam is the only religion mentioned in the resolution.
Islamic states joined with Mexico, the Russian Federation and China in supporting the measure which passed 24–14. There were nine abstentions. The Human Rights Council resolution expressed concern at “negative stereotyping” of religion, and excoriated “attempts to identify Islam with terrorism.”
The Council delegate from Pakistan, who also represented the Organization of the Islamic Conference, declared: “The resolution is tabled in the expectation that it will compel the international community to acknowledge and address the disturbing phenomena of the defamation of religions, especially Islam.”
News observers suggested that the resolution grew out of violent protests by Islamists over the Danish cartoons published in September 2005 depicting the prophet Mohammed. Muslims, backed by Christian, Jewish and other religious groups, condemned the drawings and called for anti-blasphemy legislation. In 1989, similar protests spread through the Arab world, Asia, Europe and even the United States over the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses.
These incidents have fuelled a debate over the status of religion in modern society, and raised calls for the return of blasphemy statutes aimed at protecting religious groups from “hurtful” or defamatory remarks of any kind. Proponents debate how far such legislation should go, however. The U.N. resolution only mentions Islam, but representatives of other faiths have called for similar protection of all religions.
Indeed, some Human Rights Council member representatives expressed disappointment that the resolution did not explicitly cover “defamation” against all religions. According to a U.N. press release, delegate Carlo Alvarado from Guatemala said that his nation “condemned defamation of religions and any practice incompatible with the preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms,” but grumbled that the draft resolution “was unbalanced and gave importance to one single religion over all others.”
Similar sentiments were voiced by Munu Mahawar of India who repeated the claim that the resolution focused only on one religion, while “all religions were facing the problem of defamation in one form or another.”
None of the representatives took a position aggressively defending the virtues of free expression and secularism. The nearest we got to this came from Birgitta Siefker-Eberle of Germany who said that an “on-going dialogue” was the best way of resolving differences, and that it was problematic to reconcile “defamation” with discrimination.
Representatives of 24 countries voted in favour of the controversial resolution: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
There were 14 opposing states: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Abstaining from the vote were: Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.
Roy Brown, the main spokesperson for the International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a statement to the Commission, said: “On 14 March the spokesperson for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference referred to what she described as ‘a dire need to fill the judicial vacuum of deficiency in dealing with the question of respect for religions…’ and asked for ‘effective and legally binding measures for combating defamation of all religions and incitement to racial and religious violence’.
“This however is to confuse two quite separate issues: defamation of religion, and incitement to violence. All of us, Mr President, must condemn incitement to racial and religious violence, and in this connexion we hope that the OIC will condemn the death threats made last week by Islamic extremists against the Bengali writer Taslima Nasrin.
“Mr President, no-one has a duty to respect any religion. Furthermore, lack of respect for a belief should not be confused with hatred of the believer. It is the believer that merits protection, not the belief.
“And how are we to define defamation? Are we no longer to be permitted to condemn misogyny, homophobia, or calls to kill – if they are made in the name of religion? Are we obliged to respect religious practices that we find offensive? Is lack of respect for such practices to be considered a crime? Are ideas, are religions now to be accorded human rights? Surely, when religion invades the public domain it becomes an ideology like any other, and must be open to criticism as such. To deny the claims of religion is neither defamation nor blasphemy.
“Finally, one can only express dismay at the demonising of European secularism by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism. He clearly fails to understand that secularism – that is, state neutrality in matters of religion and belief – is not an expression of intolerance but a guarantee of religious freedom for all, a defence of the values on which our human rights are based, the very values that this Council should be seeking to protect.”
Can the U.N. Human Rights Council get any worse?
Home » blogs » Preeti Aroon
Fri, 04/06/2007 - 2:57pm.
Last Thursday, Passport explained why the U.N. Human Rights Council is now fficially a joke. But that was a day before the council passed a decidedly unfunny resolution that condemns "defamation of religion." It was sponsored—surprise, surprise—by Pakistan, on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The resolution decries defamation of religion in general, but Islam is the only religion it mentions explicitly. The resolution also states that freedom of expression "should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law."
That's rich. Some of the OIC's members—Saudi Arabia comes to mind—are some of the world's worst offenders when it comes to anti-Semitic hate speech. Will they be cracking down when their own citizens defame Jews? Additionally, anti-blasphemy laws have been abused in Pakistan to settle property and business disputes.
It's no surprise that authoritarian countries like China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia would be eager to establish the precedent, even in a laughingstock of a forum like the U.N. Human Rights Council, that "defamation" should be prohibited by law. But what are democracies like the Philippines, South Africa, and Mexico doing voting in favor?
Fri, 04/06/2007 - 2:57pm.
Last Thursday, Passport explained why the U.N. Human Rights Council is now fficially a joke. But that was a day before the council passed a decidedly unfunny resolution that condemns "defamation of religion." It was sponsored—surprise, surprise—by Pakistan, on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The resolution decries defamation of religion in general, but Islam is the only religion it mentions explicitly. The resolution also states that freedom of expression "should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law."
That's rich. Some of the OIC's members—Saudi Arabia comes to mind—are some of the world's worst offenders when it comes to anti-Semitic hate speech. Will they be cracking down when their own citizens defame Jews? Additionally, anti-blasphemy laws have been abused in Pakistan to settle property and business disputes.
It's no surprise that authoritarian countries like China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia would be eager to establish the precedent, even in a laughingstock of a forum like the U.N. Human Rights Council, that "defamation" should be prohibited by law. But what are democracies like the Philippines, South Africa, and Mexico doing voting in favor?
About Human Rights Council
United Nations A/RES/60/251 General Assembly Distr.: General 3 April 2006 Sixtieth session Agenda items 46 and 120 05-50266: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/60/L.48)] 60/251. Human Rights Council
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, including developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and achieving international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,
Reaffirming also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,2 and recalling the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,3 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights3 and other human rights instruments,
Reaffirming further that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and that all human rights must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis,
Reaffirming that, while the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, all
States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, have the duty to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Emphasizing the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter, to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language or religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,
Acknowledging that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being, and recognizing that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing,
Affirming the need for all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions, and
emphasizing that States, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and the media have an important role to play in promoting olerance, respect for and freedom of religion and belief,
Recognizing the work undertaken by the Commission on Human Rights and the need to preserve and build on its achievements and to redress its shortcomings,
Recognizing also the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, and the elimination of double standards and politicization,
Recognizing further that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at rengthening the capacity of Member States to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human beings,
Acknowledging that non-governmental organizations play an important role at the national, regional and international levels, in the promotion and protection of human rights,
Reaffirming the commitment to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery, with the aim of ensuring effective enjoyment by all of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, and to that end, the resolve to create a Human Rights Council,
1. Decides to establish the Human Rights Council, based in Geneva, in replacement of the Commission on Human Rights, as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly; the Assembly shall review the status of the Council within five years;
2. Decides that the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner;
3. Decides also that the Council should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon. It should also promote the effective coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations system;
4. Decides further that the work of the Council shall be guided by the principles of iversality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive nternational dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,including the right to development;
5. Decides that the Council shall, inter alia:
(a) Promote human rights education and learning as well as advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building, to be provided in consultation with and with the consent of Member States concerned;
(b) Serve as a forum for dialogue on thematic issues on all human rights;
(c) Make recommendations to the General Assembly for the further development of international law in the field of human rights;
(d) Promote the full implementation of human rights obligations undertaken by States and follow-up to the goals and commitments related to the promotion and protection of human rights emanating from United Nations conferences and summits;
(e) Undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and
commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism,based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; the Council shall develop
the modalities and necessary time allocation for the universal periodic review
mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session;
(f) Contribute, through dialogue and cooperation, towards the prevention of human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies;
(g) Assume the role and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights relating to the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as decided by the General Assembly in its resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993;
(h) Work in close cooperation in the field of human rights with Governments, regional organizations, national human rights institutions and civil society;
(i) Make recommendations with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights;
(j) Submit an annual report to the General Assembly;
6. Decides also that the Council shall assume, review and, where necessary, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights in order to maintain a system of special procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure; the Council shall complete this review within one year after the holding of its first session;
7. Decides further that the Council shall consist of forty-seven Member States, which shall be elected directly and individually by secret ballot by the majority of the members of the General Assembly; the membership shall be based on equitable geographical distribution, and seats shall be distributed as follows among regional groups: Group of African States, thirteen; Group of Asian States, thirteen; Group of Eastern European States, six; Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, eight; and Group of Western European and other States, seven; the members of the Council shall serve for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms;
8. Decides that the membership in the Council shall be open to all States Members of the United Nations; when electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto; the General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, may suspend the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights;
9. Decides also that members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, shall fully cooperate with the Council and be reviewed under the universal periodic review mechanism during their term of membership;
10. Decides further that the Council shall meet regularly throughout the year and schedule no fewer than three sessions per year, including a main session, for a total duration of no less than ten weeks, and shall be able to hold special sessions,
when needed, at the request of a member of the Council with the support of one third of the membership of the Council;
11. Decides that the Council shall apply the rules of procedure established for committees of the General Assembly, as applicable, unless subsequently otherwise decided by the Assembly or the Council, and also decides that the participation of and consultation with observers, including States that are not members of the Council, the specialized agencies, other intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations, shall be based on arrangements, including Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996 and practices observed by the Commission on Human Rights, while ensuring the most effective contribution of these entities;
12. Decides also that the methods of work of the Council shall be transparent, fair and impartial and shall enable genuine dialogue, be resultsoriented,allow for ubsequent follow-up discussions to recommendations and their implementation and also allow for substantive interaction with special procedures and mechanisms;
13. Recommends that the Economic and Social Council request the Commission on Human Rights to conclude its work at its sixty-second session, and that it abolish the Commission on 16 June 2006;
14. Decides to elect the new members of the Council; the terms of membership shall be staggered, and such decision shall be taken for the first election by the drawing of lots, taking into consideration equitable geographical distribution;
15. Decides also that elections of the first members of the Council shall take place on 9 May 2006, and that the first meeting of the Council shall be convened on 19 June 2006;
16. Decides further that the Council shall review its work and functioning five years after its establishment and report to the General Assembly.
72nd plenary meeting
15 March 2006
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, including developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and achieving international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,
Reaffirming also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,2 and recalling the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,3 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights3 and other human rights instruments,
Reaffirming further that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and that all human rights must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis,
Reaffirming that, while the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, all
States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, have the duty to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Emphasizing the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter, to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language or religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,
Acknowledging that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being, and recognizing that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing,
Affirming the need for all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions, and
emphasizing that States, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and the media have an important role to play in promoting olerance, respect for and freedom of religion and belief,
Recognizing the work undertaken by the Commission on Human Rights and the need to preserve and build on its achievements and to redress its shortcomings,
Recognizing also the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, and the elimination of double standards and politicization,
Recognizing further that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at rengthening the capacity of Member States to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human beings,
Acknowledging that non-governmental organizations play an important role at the national, regional and international levels, in the promotion and protection of human rights,
Reaffirming the commitment to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery, with the aim of ensuring effective enjoyment by all of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, and to that end, the resolve to create a Human Rights Council,
1. Decides to establish the Human Rights Council, based in Geneva, in replacement of the Commission on Human Rights, as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly; the Assembly shall review the status of the Council within five years;
2. Decides that the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner;
3. Decides also that the Council should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon. It should also promote the effective coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations system;
4. Decides further that the work of the Council shall be guided by the principles of iversality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive nternational dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,including the right to development;
5. Decides that the Council shall, inter alia:
(a) Promote human rights education and learning as well as advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building, to be provided in consultation with and with the consent of Member States concerned;
(b) Serve as a forum for dialogue on thematic issues on all human rights;
(c) Make recommendations to the General Assembly for the further development of international law in the field of human rights;
(d) Promote the full implementation of human rights obligations undertaken by States and follow-up to the goals and commitments related to the promotion and protection of human rights emanating from United Nations conferences and summits;
(e) Undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and
commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism,based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; the Council shall develop
the modalities and necessary time allocation for the universal periodic review
mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session;
(f) Contribute, through dialogue and cooperation, towards the prevention of human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies;
(g) Assume the role and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights relating to the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as decided by the General Assembly in its resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993;
(h) Work in close cooperation in the field of human rights with Governments, regional organizations, national human rights institutions and civil society;
(i) Make recommendations with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights;
(j) Submit an annual report to the General Assembly;
6. Decides also that the Council shall assume, review and, where necessary, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights in order to maintain a system of special procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure; the Council shall complete this review within one year after the holding of its first session;
7. Decides further that the Council shall consist of forty-seven Member States, which shall be elected directly and individually by secret ballot by the majority of the members of the General Assembly; the membership shall be based on equitable geographical distribution, and seats shall be distributed as follows among regional groups: Group of African States, thirteen; Group of Asian States, thirteen; Group of Eastern European States, six; Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, eight; and Group of Western European and other States, seven; the members of the Council shall serve for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms;
8. Decides that the membership in the Council shall be open to all States Members of the United Nations; when electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto; the General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, may suspend the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights;
9. Decides also that members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, shall fully cooperate with the Council and be reviewed under the universal periodic review mechanism during their term of membership;
10. Decides further that the Council shall meet regularly throughout the year and schedule no fewer than three sessions per year, including a main session, for a total duration of no less than ten weeks, and shall be able to hold special sessions,
when needed, at the request of a member of the Council with the support of one third of the membership of the Council;
11. Decides that the Council shall apply the rules of procedure established for committees of the General Assembly, as applicable, unless subsequently otherwise decided by the Assembly or the Council, and also decides that the participation of and consultation with observers, including States that are not members of the Council, the specialized agencies, other intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations, shall be based on arrangements, including Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996 and practices observed by the Commission on Human Rights, while ensuring the most effective contribution of these entities;
12. Decides also that the methods of work of the Council shall be transparent, fair and impartial and shall enable genuine dialogue, be resultsoriented,allow for ubsequent follow-up discussions to recommendations and their implementation and also allow for substantive interaction with special procedures and mechanisms;
13. Recommends that the Economic and Social Council request the Commission on Human Rights to conclude its work at its sixty-second session, and that it abolish the Commission on 16 June 2006;
14. Decides to elect the new members of the Council; the terms of membership shall be staggered, and such decision shall be taken for the first election by the drawing of lots, taking into consideration equitable geographical distribution;
15. Decides also that elections of the first members of the Council shall take place on 9 May 2006, and that the first meeting of the Council shall be convened on 19 June 2006;
16. Decides further that the Council shall review its work and functioning five years after its establishment and report to the General Assembly.
72nd plenary meeting
15 March 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)