29 June 2006 - Child Rights and the new Human Rights Council 9

___________________________________________________________

Thursday 29th June - ORDER OF THE DAY

- Human Rights Council discusses its programme of work (10-11:30 am)

- Council discusses the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights (child rights education in Europe) (11:30am - 1pm) 

- Human Rights Council adopts Resolutions on new Convention on Enforced Disappearance and on Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (3-5:30pm)

___________________________________________________________

If you do not receive this email in html format, you will not be able to see some hyperlinks in the text. Please visit http://www.crin.org/email to read the CRNMAIL online and view archives.

___________________________________________________________

Human Rights Council discusses its programme of work 

At 10am, President Luis Alfonso de Alba called to order the 20th meeting of the Human Rights Council, during which Council members will consider two issues: the programme of work for the next year and the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights (human rights education and learning, advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building). A draft programme of work was prepared by the delegation from Norway.

Most delegations expressed their wish to see a programme of work which would be both predictable and flexible. Predictable, so that it could allow for Council members, observer States, NGOs and NHRIs to plan their work in advance; flexible to allow the Council to response to urgent and pressing human rights issues as they occur. 

The Norwegian delegate then presented a draft decision on the Human Rights Council’s programme of work for the first year. The programme of work should enhance transparency, allow for predictability to ensure that discussions are focused, and allow for the full participation of all stakeholders. As this year is a transitional year, the speaker highlighted that the programme of work and subsequent agenda adopted should not be considered as setting precedents for the following years.

The Draft proposed the following HRC sessions (NB: the draft framework does not contain dates for intersessional activities (working group meetings and possible special sessions):

• September 2006 (3 weeks) to deal withy the questions of legacy and mandates
• December 2006: new mechanisms, progress report and discussion and decisions
• March-April 2007 (main session) to deal with new reports of Special Procedures, decisions on new mechanisms not made in the December session.

Other delegations took the floor to support Norway’s proposal and add a few comments.

Inter-sessional work: Some delegations stressed that the programme of work for this first and transitional year had to enable the Council to make both urgent and non urgent decisions in time. For this reason, they thought inter-sessional work was required, that has to be carried out in both a formal and informal manner (Australia/ Australia, Canada, NZ).

Role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights : Aware of the importance of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in drawing the Council’s attention to important human rights issues, delegations discussed the frequency with which the High Commissioner should present her report to the Council: at each session (Japan) or every year (Iran).

Separation of rights : Austria (on behalf of the EU) pointed out that the programme of work should avoid dichotomies between different rights and work on one generic item dealing with human rights in general rather than separating civil and political rights from economic, social and cultural rights. Algeria/ African Group disagreed and wanted to see those rights separated.

A vote will take place tomorrow on the draft decision issued by the HRC President, on the Council's programme of work for the first yera.

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=8988

------------------------------------------------------

Council discusses the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights

At 11:30am, the Council proceeded to discuss the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights (human rights education and learning, advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building). 

Mehr Khan Williams, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, addressing the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights, said that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) was convinced that it was at the ground level – by involving officials and civil society – that the greatest differences could be made. Technical cooperation was an integral part of OHCHR's country engagement strategy that aimed to support both rights-holders and duty-bearers in a timely and context-specific manner. Country offices presented the most effective way for OHCHR to carry out technical cooperation projects. Recent examples were the three country offices established last year in Nepal, Guatemala, and in Uganda.

In the debate on dialogue and cooperation on human rights, including human rights education and learning, advisory services, technical assistance and capacity-building, a speaker identified that the Council's overall objective should aim at enhancing the endogenous capacity of the receiving State to identify and address critical human rights problems and face challenges. Several speakers noted that the promotion of education and training on human rights was a priority for the Council, as was the commitment to strengthen the capacity of States and increase technical cooperation. Some speakers felt that technical cooperation in the field of human rights should be freed from all forms of conditionality. Many speakers acknowledged that, in this area, the Council would benefit from close cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the special procedures, who should address the Council at each session. Finally, one speaker said that the spirit of dialogue and cooperation should be reflected in the rules of procedure of the Council.

Addressing the issue of dialogue and cooperation on human rights were the representatives of Austria, on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland, Algeria, on behalf of the African Group, Canada, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Guatemala, Japan, Colombia, the Holy See, Côte d'Ivoire, Thailand, Slovenia, Nepal, Iran, Tanzania, and Sweden. A representative of the United Nations Development Programme also spoke. Non-governmental organizations speaking on this topic were Sokka Gakai International (in a joint statement on behalf of 21 international human rights NGOs), Ius Primi Viri, and the Center for Women's Global Leadership. 

Human rights education and learning: Teaching child rights in Europe

Andrej Logar, from Slovenia, said that during its Chairmanship of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2005, Slovenian had developed a pilot project based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The project consisted of a new teaching tool in the form of illustrated cards for the education of children between 10 and 12 years of age about their rights. Special attention was paid to the cultural diversify of OSCE participating States in the preparation of the texts and illustrations of the cards. The same set of teaching cards for pupils and the information for teachers was published, disseminated and implemented in 14 languages. The teaching tool in Roma language was used in several countries. Approximately 11,000 children and 300 teachers from 12 States had implemented the project so far. Slovenia strongly advocated strengthening cooperation with regional organisations, as well as with civil society, in that area.

[Source: UN]

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=9001

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human Rights Council adopts Resolutions on new Convention on Enforced Disappearance and on Declaration on the Rights of Indiginous People 

At 3pm, the HRC President called to order the 21st meeting of the first session of the Human Rights Council, to begin consideratrions of proposals number 2 (Adoption of the agenda and organisation of work), 4 (Implementation of GA Resolution 60/251 entitled "Human Rights Council") and 5 (Programme of work for the first year).

The HRC Secretary then reminded Council members of voting procedures. Proposals will be introduced by sponsors (who can be member States or observer States), and any corrections to proposals are announced by sponsors at this stage. He went on to provide explanations and instructions on procedures for co-sponsors, general comments, amendments, statements by concerned countries, explanations of vote, speaking time limits, electronic voting system, etc.

Draft Resolution on the Convention on Enforced disappearance

Introduction

The Ambassador of France took the floor to introduce draft Resolution L2 on the UN Convention on enforced disappearance and called for the adoption of the draft "International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance". The text, he said, was drafted by an openen-ended intergovernmental working group, chaired by Mr Kessedjian, and has the support of NGOs. In September 2005, the text was transmitted to the Commission on Human Rights, which did not have time to decide on the future of this binding legal instrument before it was abolished.

The Ambassador also explained that support for the Convention was also given to the group from Kofi Annan, the president of the ICRC and the Argentine delegation. In addition, 38(?) countries have decided to be co-sponsors for this Convention. He finally called on everyone to adopt the Convention so that the text could be open for signature as soon as possible.

General Comments

Argentina indicated that the HRC could not start in a more auspicious way than by approving this new legally binding instrument and saluted the dedication and efforts of human rights activists in Argentina. Guatemala and Finland/EU made supporting statements. Peru saluted the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, and famous activist Marta Vazquez, whose daughter disappeared in 1976, and who was present in the room - the speaker pointed out that this act was often coomitted in connection with other human rights violations like the right to life or freedom from torture. Japan and Algeria also made supporting statements, so did the UK, with some comments on certain provisions.

Vote

There were no explanations on votes, so the Convention was immediately adopted by consensus. An emotional round of applause followed and all those present in the room turned to Marta Basquez. Canada, Sri Lanka and Ecuador made post-vote statements.

Draft Resolution contained in L3 on the rights of indigenous peoples

Introduction

The Peru delegation introduced the contentious Draft Resolution on the UN Declartion on the right of Indigenous Peoples (see Tuesday's discussions). He explained that indigenous populations had neen victims of oppression, discrimination and sometimes policies of extermination for many years. Despite progress in acknowledging their rights, violations of their rights still continue today. The Council, he said, can begin to make a difference and change the course of history by adopting this Resolution today. Peru is made up of indigenous societies, and happy to present Draft Resolution L3 to the Council. The Draft enjoys co-sponsordhip of 45 delegations. It was supposed to be voted on at the 62nd session of the CHR. The delegate appealed to all delegations to adopt the text by consensus.

General comments

Guatemala expressed its support for the draft, and reminded those present that it was the result of 20 years of uniterrupted work. Switzerland also reminded voters that the text of the Declaration was the result of many compromises within working group chaired by Luis Enrique Chavez from Peru. Mexico supported the text.

Explanations of vote (pre-vote)

Canada stated that it did not see this text as an acceptable outcome of negotiations, and asked the Council to prolong discussions as the draft to them did not receive the necessary support. Canada thought some provisions were too vague, namely the provision on land rights. India and Indonesia encouraged a yes vote. Bangladesh did not accept that the Draft text was being put to a vote, as for them it is far from being ready. The text needs to be further discussed and is not mature, they said. Russia also said it could not support the draft Resolution in its current form, they are not opposed however to continue to participate in discussions meant to improve the Draft. The Philippines also made a statement.

Vote

Results: 30 favour - 2 against - 12 abstentions. The Draft was adopted. Explanations on votes were made by Brazil, Algeria, Japan, Argentina, Ukraine, Mauritius, Germany, UK, Jordan (correction on vote: non-participatory instead of abstention), Barhain (same thing), Morocco. Exceptionally the floor was given to a representative from an indigenous people's organisation.

Draft Resolution contained in L4/Rev on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Introduction

Portugal introduced the Draft Resolution which enjoys the support of 50 sponsors, and called on the Council to adopt the draft Resolution by consensus. The prsident invited interested delegations to add their name to the list of co-sponsors if they wished to do so.

General comments

Guatemala gave supporting statements. Saudi Arabia made a reservation on the subject of cooperation and developing countries.

Vote

No request for pre-vote explanations on votes, the draft was therefore adopted by consensus.

Visit: http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=8992

Further information

• Draft resolution, conventions, decisions and statements issued during the 1st HRC session
• Consideration of the report of the Working Group on the elaboration of a draft Convention on Enforced Disappearance - 27th June Morning
• Consideration of the report of the Working Group on a draft UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples - 27th June Afternoon
• Consideration of the report of the Working Group on the elaboration of an Optional Protocol on the ICESCR - 27th June Morning

___________________________________________________________

This update has been produced by CRIN, in collaboration with the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Subgroup for the Commission on Human Rights. To subscribe, unsubscribe or view archives, visit http://www.crin.org/email. More information is available at: http://www.crin.org/HRC and http://www.crin.org/chr/news.

___________________________________________________________