Quick summary
- The 31st regular session of the Human Rights Council (HRC31) was held from 29 February 2016 to 24 March 2016.
- At the opening of the session, statements were delivered by H.E. Mr Choi Kyong-Lim, President of the Human Rights Council, Mr Mogens Lykketoft, President of General Assembly, H.E. Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and H.E. Mr Didier Burkhalter, Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Swiss Confederation.
- The High Level Segment was attended by, amongst others, H.E. Mr Didier Burkhalter, President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbe of Togo, Lorella Stefanelli and Nicola Renzi, Captains Regents of San Marino, Augusto Santos Silva, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portugal, Didier Reynders, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, Mr Lutfi Elvan, Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr Ban Ki-Moon Secretary General of the UN, Mr Mogens Lykketoft, President of UN General Assembly and around 90 other dignitaries.
- 2 high level and 8 panel discussions were held during the session.
- 80 reports under the various items on the Council’s agenda were considered.
- The outcomes of the UPR working groups of the following 14 countries were adopted: Micronesia, Lebanon, Mauritania, Nauru, Rwanda, Nepal, Austria, Australia, Georgia, Saint Lucia, Oman, Myanmar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tomé and Principe.
- More than 200 side events were held by States and/or NGOs during the session.
- 40 texts were considered by the Council: 37 resolutions, 1 decision and 2 President’s statement. Of these, 27 were adopted by consensus (67%), and 13 by a recorded vote (33%).
- 21 of the texts adopted by the Council (52%) had Programme Budget Implications (PBI) and 10 required new appropriations not included in previous Programme Budgets. The total costs of the newly mandated activities amounted to $10.172.900.
High Level Segment
Opening HRC31, the President of the Council, H.E. Mr Choi Kyong-Lim, stated that the presence of so many high level dignitaries underscored the importance that States attach to the mandate and work of the Council and the wider UN human rights agenda (link to statement).
The President of the General Assembly, Mr Mogens Lykketoft, noted that 2016 is a year of important anniversaries for the UN and the Human Rights Council, and that it provides an opportunity to honestly reflect on what had been achieved and what could be improved (link to statement).
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said that the 10th anniversary of the Council cries out for action and decisive and cooperative leadership in defence of vital principles. Increasing incidences of gross violations of fundamental rights is the end result of poor decisions by many governments, by contempt for international law, and by casual indifference to human suffering (link to statement).
H.E. Mr Didier Burkhalter (Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Swiss Confederation) stated that the age of the Council – 10 years – was the age of childhood, which should be a carefree time of hope and discovery. But the international community was far from having achieved that reality for many children around the world (link to statement).
During its four-day High-level Segment, the Council heard addresses from two Heads of State and around 90 dignitaries, including Deputy Prime Ministers, Vice Ministers, Ministers and other senior dignitaries. 2 high-level panel discussions were convened: on human rights mainstreaming focusing on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with an emphasis on the right to development; and on the 50th anniversary of the two human rights Covenants.
The high level panel discussion on human rights mainstreaming focusing on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with an emphasis on the right to development, saw the participation of the UN Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, Mr Mogens Lykketoft, President of the UN General Assembly, Ms Helen Clark, Administrator of the UNDP and Chair of the UN Development Group, Mr Babatunde Osotimehin, Executive Director of the UN Population Fund, Mr Yannick Glemarec, Executive Director of UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, and Ms Jan Beagle, Deputy Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.
The high level panel discussion marking the fiftieth anniversary of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a focus on the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of human rights saw, amongst others, the participation of Mr Gennady Gatilov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Mr Fabian Omar Salvioli, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Mr Waleed Sadi, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Ms Catarina de Albuquerque, Executive Chair of the Sanitation and Water for all Partnership, and member of the Board of Trustees of the URG.
Briefing by the High Commissioner for Human Rights
In presenting his annual report to the Council on 10th March 2016, Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that the refugee agreement between the EU and Turkey raised serious human rights concerns, including the potential for collective and arbitrary expulsion. He also referred to a number of urgent situations including the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and the deterioration of human rights in Turkey and Venezuela. He also raised the situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, violence against persons of African descent in the US and the repression of minorities in Iran. He furthermore called for public health responses to the Zika virus to fully integrate human rights, including the right to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health. He urged the Council to continue its work to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. He also regretted that OHCHR continues to rely on voluntary contributions to carry out many of its mandated activities. For 2016, the needs-based estimate for OHCHR stands at US$ 217 million, but its expected extra-budgetary cost plan is US$ 130 million. The gap between these two numbers represents the people that OHCHR will not be able to help.
On a more positive note, he was heartened to see so many States continue to engage actively with the Universal Periodic Review, and that in 2015, the Treaty Bodies had met for a record combined total of 99 weeks, allowing them to review the reports of 173 States Parties (link to statement).
Panel Discussions
A total of 10 panel discussions were held during the 31st session. The panels were on the following topics (click for OHCHR meeting summaries):
- Human rights mainstreaming: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and human rights, with an emphasis on the right to development (annual high level panel)
- Fiftieth anniversary of the International Covenants on Human Rights: universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights (high-level panel)[1]
- Climate change and the right to health (panel)
- Rights of persons with disabilities: Article 11 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies (annual interactive debate)
- Rights of the child: Information and communications technology and child sexual exploitation (annual full day meeting)
- Progress in and challenges of addressing human rights issues in the context of efforts to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030 (panel)
- Human rights dimensions of preventing and countering violent extremism (panel)
- Incompatibility between democracy and racism (panel) [2]
- State of racial discrimination worldwide: Commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (panel)
- Technical cooperation and capacity-building to promote and protect the rights of all migrants, including women, children, older persons and persons with disabilities (annual thematic discussion)
Special Procedures
Interactive Dialogues
22 mandate holders (14 thematic, 8 country-specific) presented annual reports to the Council (all of which are available here). The Special Rapporteur on Eritrea provided an oral update, while the Special Rapporteurs on peaceful assembly and on summary executions presented a joint compilation report on “practical recommendations for the proper management of assemblies, based on best practices and lessons learned.”
During the 18 Interactive Dialogues (8 ‘clustered’ and 10 individual), 132 states delivered statements (either individually or jointly), of which 27% were from the African Group, 24% from APG, 16% from EEG, 13% from GRULAC and 20% from WEOG.
* Oral update only ** Presentation of additional joint compilation report.
Special Procedures Annual Report presented under item 5
During the session, Chairperson of the Special Procedures Coordination Committee, Michael Addo, presented a “report of the twenty-second annual meeting of special rapporteurs/representatives, independent experts and working groups of the special procedures of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, 8 to 12 June 2015), including updated information on the special procedures” (A/HRC/31/39).
This report gives a comprehensive picture of what Special Procedures did in 2015, both individually and as a system, in terms of country visits, communications, thematic reports, follow-up activities, joint actions, development of international standards, and advocacy. On cooperation, the report provides information on levels of state responsiveness to Special Procedures urgent appeals and other communications, noting that States responded to only 42% of all communications in 2015, adding that such responses varied ‘from acknowledgements of receipt to substantive replies.’ [3] Personally presenting the report to the Council under the General Debate of agenda item 5, Michael Addo said that the report was designed to “make information on our work and its impact more easily accessible.”
A cross-regional group of 44 States delivered a statement welcoming the report, “which contains substantive and amplified information on the work [undertaken by Special Procedures] and the challenges they face,” noting that “increased information-sharing […] lays the basis for a strengthened and genuine dialogue, constructive engagement and cooperation with different stakeholders, including governments and civil society.” They also welcomed, in particular, the presence of the Chair of the Coordination Committee.
The decision taken by the Special Procedures to include information on external funding in the annual report (in Annex X) was widely welcomed by a range of States, including Uruguay (on behalf of 44 States), Cuba, Venezuela and Ghana. In the context of the financial information provided, Venezuela, Ghana and others stressed the importance of increasing regular budgetary support for the Special Procedures.
The Gulf Cooperation Council used the opportunity to stress the importance of the Special Procedures’ Internal Advisory Procedure (IAP), aimed at “preserving the integrity of the mechanism,” and invited the Coordination Committee to “give more visibility to [the IAP] by clarifying its mission and objectives to all stakeholders with full transparency and seriousness that we have been accustomed to.”
Appointment of new mandate-holders
Two new Special Procedures mandate-holders were appointed during the session:
- Surya Deva (India) as the APG member of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises;
- Stanley Michael Lynk (Canada) as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967
While Mr Deva was the first choice put forward by the Consultative Group (made up of representatives from Albania, Egypt, France and Thailand) for the Working Group, the President decided to go with the second choice for the position of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. Submitting his proposals to the Council via letter on 23rd March 2016, the President explained that his decision was “based on [his] consultations and the general criteria contained in paragraph 39 of resolution 5/1.”
The appointment of a new Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 follows the resignation of the former Special Rapporteur, Mr Makarim Wibisono, in January 2016. In a statement, Mr Wibisono put his decision down to “Israel’s failure to grant him access to the areas he [was] tasked with monitoring.”
Universal Periodic Review
Adoption of UPR Working Groups reports
The Council adopted the UPR reports of Micronesia, Lebanon, Mauritania, Nauru, Rwanda, Nepal, Austria, Australia, Georgia, Saint Lucia, Oman, Myanmar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Sao Tomé and Principe. A total of 2,689 recommendations were made to these 14 countries, out of which 1,845 were accepted in whole or in part and 844 were noted or rejected.
General debate under item 6
During the general debate on the UPR held on 18th March, the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the EU, underscored the important role of NGOs and human rights defenders in the implementation of UPR recommendations. The African Group expressed concern that many requests for technical assistance and capacity building are not being met, in part because of the weakness of funding for the Office of the High Commissioner. The African Group called for the prioritisation of demands for technical assistance from African countries and Small Island Developing States.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines said it had established an inter-ministerial committee to prepare and submit the second cycle UPR report. Georgia reiterated its commitment to submit a mid-term report on the status of the implementation of accepted recommendations and encouraged other States to do likewise.
Of importance for the future of the UPR process was the adoption by the Council of Presidential decision L.14 entitled “Commencement of the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review.” According to this decision, the third cycle of the UPR shall start in April/May 2017, once the outcome documents of last States considered during the second cycle are adopted at the Council’s 34th Session. With this decision, the time span between two reviews for a State will be 5 years.
Resolutions, decisions and President’s statements
The 31st session of the Council concluded with the adoption of 40 texts: 37 resolutions, 1 decision and 2 President’s statement. This represents an increase of 7.5 % from the number of texts adopted at the 28th session in March 2015.
Around 33% of the texts were adopted by a recorded vote.
26 (65%) of the texts adopted by the Council were thematic in nature, while only 14 (35%) dealt with country-specific situations. Of these, 10 addressed human rights violations (under agenda items 4, 7 and 10) and 3 sought to protect human rights through technical assistance and capacity building (under item 10).
21 of the adopted texts (52%) had Programme Budget Implications (PBI), requiring appropriations of $10.172.900 not previously covered by the UN regular budget.
RESOLUTIONS |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Agenda Item |
Resolution |
Sponsors |
PBI? |
Extra-Budgetary Appropriations |
Adoption |
| 2 | Composition of staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights | Cuba | ✗ | – | Vote
(31-1-13) |
| 3 |
Integrity of the judicial system |
Belarus, Cuba, Russian Federation, Venezuela |
✗ | – | Consensus |
| 3 |
Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism: mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism |
Mexico | ✓ | 0
|
Consensus |
|
3 |
Commemoration of the 30th Anniversary of the Declaration on the right to development |
Iran (NAM) |
✓ |
$47.500 |
Vote (34-13-0) |
| 3 | Question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights |
Portugal |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 3 |
The rights of persons with disabilities in situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies |
Mexico, New Zealand |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 3 |
Rights of the child: information and communications technologies and child sexual exploitation |
European Union, GRULAC |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 3 |
Human rights and the environment |
Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia, Switzerland |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 3 |
Adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context |
Brazil, Finland, Germany, Namibia |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 3 |
Human rights education and training |
Costa Rica, Italy, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Thailand |
✓ |
$69.200 |
Consensus |
|
3 |
Effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of all human rights |
Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia | ✓ |
$74.700 |
Vote (28-14-5) |
| 3 |
The right to food |
Cuba |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 3 |
The effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights |
Cuba |
✗ |
– |
Vote (33-2-12) |
| 3 | Promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for cultural diversity |
Cuba |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 3 | Rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities |
Austria, Senegal, Slovenia |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 3 |
Role of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights |
Australia, Chile, Poland, Republic of Korea, South Africa | ✓ |
$36.300 |
Consensus |
|
3 |
The promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests |
Costa Rica, Switzerland, Turkey |
✗ |
– |
Vote (31-10-5) |
| 3 |
The negative impact of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin to the countries of origin on the enjoyment of human rights, and the importance of improving international cooperation |
South Africa (African Group) |
✗ |
– |
Vote (32-0-15) |
| 3 | Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Safeguards to prevent torture during police custody and pre-trial detention | Denmark | ✓ |
$55.800 |
Consensus |
|
3 |
Protecting human rights defenders addressing economic, social and cultural rights. |
Norway |
✗ |
– |
Vote (33-6-8) |
| 3 |
Promoting Human Rights through sport and the Olympic ideal |
Brazil, China, Congo, Cyprus, Greece, Japan, Lebanon, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation |
✓ |
$50.600 |
Consensus |
| 3 |
Right to work |
Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Mexico, Romania | ✓ |
$63.000 |
Consensus |
| 3 | Freedom of religion or belief | Netherlands (European Union) | ✓ | 0 | Consensus |
| 4 |
The human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic |
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Turkey, France, Italy, Germany, United States of America, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Morocco, Jordan |
✓ | $6.514.200 | Vote
(27-14-6) |
| 4 |
Situation of human rights in Myanmar |
European Union |
✓ |
0 |
Consensus |
| 4 | Situation of human rights in South Sudan | Albania, Paraguay, United Kingdom, United States of America | ✗ | – | Consensus |
| 4 | Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea | European Union, Japan | ✓ | $404.400 | Consensus |
| 4 | Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran | FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Sweden, United States of America | ✓ | 0 |
Vote (20-11-15) |
| 7 | Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan | Pakistan (OIC) | ✗ | – | Vote
(31-0-16) |
| 7 | Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination | Pakistan (OIC) | ✗ | – | Consensus |
| 7 | Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem | Pakistan (OIC) | ✓ | $2,322.900 | Vote
(42-5-0) |
| 7 | Ensuring accountability and justice for all violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem | Pakistan (OIC) | ✓ | $292.300 | vote (32-15-0) |
| 7 | Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan | Pakistan (OIC) | ✓ | $138.700 | Vote
(32-15-0) |
| 9 | Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief |
Pakistan (OIC), Turkey | ✗ | – | Consensus |
|
10 |
Strengthening technical cooperation and advisory services for Guinea |
South Africa (African Group) |
✗ | – | Consensus |
|
10 |
Technical assistance and capacity-building for Mali in the field of human rights |
South Africa (African Group) |
✓ | 0 | Consensus |
|
10 |
Technical assistance and capacity-building to improve human rights in Libya |
South Africa (African Group) | ✓ | $36.300 | Consensus |
Decisions and President’s Statements |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Agenda Item |
Decision/President’s Statement |
Sponsors |
PBI? |
Extra-Budgetary Appropriations |
Adoption |
|
3 |
High-level panel on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Human Rights Council |
Belgium, Gabon, Germany, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay |
✓ |
$77.000 |
Consensus |
|
6 |
Commencement of the 3rd cycle of the universal periodic review |
HRC President |
✗ |
– |
Consensus |
| 10 | Situation des droits de l’homme en Haïti | HRC President | ✓ | 0 | Consensus |
Analysis and Conclusions
In view of the Council’s 10th anniversary, the 31st session (HRC31) represented an early opportunity for States to reflect on the Council’s achievements and shortfalls over the past decade. In that regard, on 29th February (the first day of HRC31), Switzerland, with support from the Universal Rights Group (URG), convened a high-level side event on ‘10 years of the Council: opportunities and perspectives.’ During the meeting, speakers including the Foreign Minister of Switzerland, the Vice Minister for Human Rights of Mexico, and the Secretary-General of Amnesty International, called on the international community to use the next 5-10 years to further strengthen the Council’s work and impact, including by increasing its focus on implementation. (Implementation will also be the main theme of this year’s Glion Human Rights Dialogue, organised by Norway and Switzerland). To contribute to that process, at the end of HRC31, States decided to convene a high level panel discussion in June to mark the 10th anniversary of the Council’s first session in 2006.
With regard to the Council’s core mandate of addressing gross violations of human rights, HRC31 saw a number of positive developments.
For example, frank yet constructive consultations between the African Group and the proponents of a resolution on the human rights situation in South Sudan (US, UK, Albania and Paraguay), concluded with the consensus adoption, under item 4 (situations requiring the Council’s attention), of a resolution establishing a new mechanism: a Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan. This (de facto) new type of Special Procedure (comprising 3 members) is mandated to monitor the human rights situation in South Sudan and report to the Council at its 34th session. The fact that the new item 4 mechanism was established as part of an agreement between the main sponsors and the African Group sends a strong unified message from the international community to the authorities in South Sudan. Importantly, the South Sudan Government has indicated that it will cooperate with the new mechanism.
It is also important to note that the establishment of this new country-specific mechanism is part of an important new creative vein that appears to be running through today’s Council. New uses for item 2, new commissions of inquiry using existing (thematic) Special Procedures mandates (i.e. on the situation in Burundi), and informal Council briefings by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, are just some of the recent examples of the Council striving to make the most of its existing tools and adding some new ones – in order to fulfil its mandate under GA resolution 60/251.
Other important country specific resolutions adopted at HRC31 dealt with the human rights situations in the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran, Myanmar, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Regarding Myanmar, the consensus adoption of a resolution commending the concerned State for recent human rights progress (including the holding of free and fair elections) while identifying areas where further improvements are needed, marks an important success for the Council, and a further example (building on other examples such as Sri Lanka) that the Council’s work to draw attention to violations and to try to engage with the country concerned to encourage it to change course, can bring important dividends. Regarding DPRK, in addition to extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, the Council also decided to designate, for a period of six months, ‘two existing independent experts in support of the work of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to focus on issues of accountability…in particular where such violations amount to crimes against humanity, as found by the commission of inquiry.’ Although some observers have questioned what such a mechanism can add, beyond what has already been achieved by the Special Rapporteur and the COI DPRK, the resolution’s supporters believe the new panel on accountability gives the Council more ‘teeth’ by moving beyond reporting on gross violations to actually recommending legal channels of redress and justice.
In addition to the further emergence of innovative approaches to tackling country-specific human rights issues, another trend discernable at HRC31 was an increased polarization around certain thematic issues. As has been the case for a number of years – at both the Council and the Third Committee of the GA – resolutions dealing with issues of freedom of association and freedom of assembly have become ‘lightening rods’ for amendments and difficult votes. URG research (see above graph) shows the extent of the growth in amendments tabled to texts during voting. Before the 22nd session, such amendments (sometimes termed ‘hostile amendments’) were relatively rare. At HRC31, there were around 40 of them – with the resolutions on ‘human rights defenders’ and ‘peaceful protests’ particular targets.
The amendments tabled to the Norway-led resolution on ‘human rights defenders’ were particularly noteworthy – and surprising – when the resolution in question was focused on promoting economic, social and cultural rights (ESCRs), and contributing to the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): objectives that usually enjoy the consensus support of the ‘global South.’ As noted by South Africa during the adoption of a resolution on the question of the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, in order to be credible, the Council must move away from merely underlining the importance of ESCRs, and towards a greater focus on justiciability and how best to give domestic legal effect to the CESCR. (South Africa’s point is supported by URG research which shows that of the 41 main sponsors of the ESCR resolution, only around a quarter have ratified the Optional Protocol to CESCR.) By seeking to empower domestic civil society to press governments to fulfil their obligations under the CESCRs, the Norway-led resolution sought to respond to this imperative to make ESCRs ‘real.’
Despite this focus and even though the main sponsor convened 6 informal consultations, 31 amendments were tabled. (This continues a pattern, in both Geneva and New York, which has seen recent resolutions on civil society space, human rights defenders, and reprisals, become the focus of amendments and calls for votes.) After around 3 hours of voting, all 31 amendments (tabled by Russia, Cuba, China, Egypt and Pakistan) were rejected by the Council.
In a separate development that raises questions about the credibility of the Council in the eyes of the wider international community, HRC31 saw the adoption of two different resolutions on the same broad subject: terrorism and human rights. One, led by Mexico (and adopted by consensus), focused on the long-standing Council theme of ‘protecting human rights while countering terrorism.’ A second resolution (adopted by a vote), led by Egypt, focused on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights.
When explaining its vote against the latter resolution, Belgium (which had just suffered a major terrorist attack in Brussels) expressed its concern that the language of the resolution could be used to undermine the human rights of individuals under the cover of the fight against terrorism. South Africa, which also voted against the latter text, said that the resolution could be used to target ‘freedom fighters’ or people fighting against occupation, by labelling them as terrorists.
Beyond such substantive concerns, many delegations pointed out that the adoption of two ‘competing’ resolutions, each offering different perspectives and advocating different approaches to the same broad issue, undermines the credibility of the Council. Observers might well be forgiven for asking: which of the two adopted texts represents the actual position and will of the international community on the crucial matter of terrorism and global responses thereto?
A final reflection on HRC31 is that the session has demonstrated, yet again, the importance of efforts to bring greater efficiency and effectiveness of the methods of work of the Council. Continuing a worrying decade-long trend, HRC31 saw a multitude of long, often aimless, debates on general thematic issues (including 10 thematic panel debates), meaning delegations were not able to use the time available to focus on the core mandate of the Council, as expressed in GA resolution 60/251 (including implementation, follow-up, meaningful interactive dialogue, and the delivery of technical assistance). During HRC31, delegations regularly started at 9am and finished at 9pm (with no lunchtime). On the penultimate day of the session, the Council finished its work at around midnight. As noted by the Council President in his concluding remarks, addressing this problem, in a consensual and inclusive manner, and within the parameters set by the institution-building package (IBP), must be a priority for Members of the Council in the year ahead.
Notes:
[1] HRC res. 29/1.
[2] HRC res. 29/20.
Image credits: Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speaks with Choi Kyong-lim President of the Human Rights Council at the opening of the Human Rights Council session and the High-level panel discussion on human rights mainstreaming, UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0; Human Rights Council 31st Session, United States Mission Geneva, licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0; Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations, High Commissioner for Human Rights at the 31st regular session of the Human Rights Council, 10 March 2016, UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0; Rita Izsak, Special Rapporteur on minority issues presents her annual report at the 31st regular session of the Human Rights Council, 15 March 2016, UN Photo / Jean-Marc Ferré, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0; Special Rapporteurs Christof Heyns (L) and Maina Kiai during a break in the proceedings, Maina Kiai, licensed under CC BY 2.0; Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism presents his annual report at the 31st regular session of the Human Rights Council, 10 March 2016, UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0; Ahmed Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran presents his report at the 31st regular session of the Human Rights Council, 14 March 2016, UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Share this Post
