2009-2010 HRC Report Card

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

1/22

REPORT CARDHUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

2009-2010Government Positions on Key Issues

DEMOCRACY COALIION PROJEC

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

2/22

1

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REPORT CARD 2009-2010Government Positions on Key Issues

1

ABOUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCILJuly 2009-June 2010

MEMBER COUNTRY MEMBER COUNTRY MEMBER COUNTRY

Angola Gabon Pakistan

Argentina Ghana Philippines

Bahrain * Hungary Qatar

Bangladesh India Republic of Korea

* Belgium Indonesia Russia

Bolivia * Italy Saudi Arabia

Bosnia and Herzegovina Japan Senegal

Brazil Jordan * Slovakia

Burkina Faso Kyrgyzstan * Slovenia

Cameroon Madagascar South Africa

Chile Mauritius Ukraine

China Mexico * United Kingdom

Cuba * Netherlands United States

Djibouti Nicaragua Uruguay

Egypt Nigeria Zambia

* France Norway

The President of the UN Human Rights Council from July 2009-June 2010 was Mr. Alex Van Meeuwen of Belgium.

UN Regional Groups

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

Other Cross-regional Blocs

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)(15 members on the Council)

* European Union (EU)(8 members on the Council) Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)(26 members on the Council)Arab Group(6 members on the Council)

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

3/22

2


1Te mandate o the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights situation in the Sudan was replaced with an Independent Expert in 2009.2UPR-Ino, Analytical Assessment o the UPR, 2008-2010, May 2010.3Ibid.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL AT A GLANCESpanning June 2006-December 2010

288 resolutionswere adopted by the Council since 2006, o which 80 were country-speciic resolutions and 73 percent were

adopted by consensus.

Dierent approaches have been used by the Council to address serious country situations. hey include fact-finding missions

(Occupied Palestinian erritory, Darur); monitoring mechanisms (Myanmar, North Korea); the provision o technical as-

sistance(Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan); and resolutions that express the concern of the Council (Aghanistan, Aung San Suu Kyi

and other political prisoners).

No new country mandates were established by the Council despite calls by NGOs and states or new mandates to monitor

situations in Iran, Democratic Republic o the Congo, and Aghanistan. he Council maintained existing special procedures

mandates on Myanmar, North Korea, Haiti, Somalia, Cambodia, Burundi, Sudan,1and the Occupied Palestinian erritory; it

discontinued the mandates on Belarus, Cuba, Liberia, Democratic Republic o the Congo, and Darur.

Te Council did, however, engage on three new emerging country situationsHonduras, Guinea and Kyrgyzstanrequesting

the High Commissioner or Human Rights to report on the situations.

Te Council created fivenewthematic mandatesthe Independent Expert in the field o cultural rights; the Independent

Expert on the issue o human rights obligations related to access to sae drinking water and sanitation; the Special Rapporteur

on contemporary orms o slavery; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to reedom o peaceul assembly and association; and

the Independent Expert Committee or the elimination o discrimination against women.

13 special sessionshave been held since 2006 to consider urgent situations in Darur, Myanmar, Lebanon, the Occupied Pales-

tinian erritory, the Democratic Republic o the Congo, Sri Lanka, Haiti, the world ood crisis, and the global economic crisis.

Te candidacies o Belarus (2007), Sri Lanka (2008), and Azerbaijan (2009) were each deeated afer global NGO campaigns

opposed their membership to the Council on human rights grounds. Iranwithdrew its bid or similar reasons in 2010.

144 countrieshave been reviewed during the first nine sessions o theUniversal Periodic Review(UPR) mechanism.

Tus ar, the UPR maintains a 100 percent participationrateby states, whereas select states have skipped reaty Body sessions

or ailed to submit reaty Body reports.2

Iran,with212, and the United States, with 240, received more recommendations than any other state during the first nine ses-

sions o the UPR.

North Koreareused to accept any o the 161recommendations provided at its UPR session.

Out o the 10,262 recommendationsmade in the first seven sessions o the UPR, roughly 68 percent were accepted, 13 percent

rejected, and 19 percent received an unclear response or are still pending.3
http://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/UPR-Info_Analytical_assessment_of_the_UPR_2008-2010_05-10-2010.pdfhttp://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/UPR-Info_Analytical_assessment_of_the_UPR_2008-2010_05-10-2010.pdf

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

4/22

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

5/22

4


5A/HRC/RES/13/14. 6Australia, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, urkey and the United States. 7Notably, despite its purported principled and consistent position against country specific resolutions, Indonesia joined the consensus on the resolution on

the human rights situation in Myanmar at the same session. 8Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, India, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, and South Arica. 9Argentina, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Djibouti, France, Ghana, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar, Mauritius,

Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Republic o Korea, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Zambia.10Te name reers to the head o the act-finding mission, Justice Richard Goldstone, who is the ormer member o the South Arican Constitutional Court and

Chie Prosecutor o the International Criminal ribunals or the ormer Yugoslavia and Rwanda.11A/HRC/S-9/1 was adopted by a vote o 33 in avor, to one against and 13 abstentions.

o states. In these cases, members o groups were assumed to

support the group opinion unless they clearly disassociated

themselves rom the groups position or were recorded as ex-

pressing an alternative view. Since many o the state-to-state

consultations were conducted behind closed doors, it was di-

icult to ully ascertain the role played by all states in the de-

cision-making process. hus, analyzing the public statementsand votes o governments was judged to be the most accurate

way to hold governments accountable in a uniorm manner.

ADDRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea(North Korea)

Despite continued resistance rom the worlds most closed

nation, the Council once again adopted a resolution on the

Situation of human rights in the Democratic Peoples Re-

public of Korea5 at the Councils hirteenth session. he

resolution, introduced by Japan and Spain (on behal o the

European Union) and co-sponsored by Croatia, Montenegro,

the Republic o Korea, the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Mace-

donia and WEOG states,6 expressed deep concern over the

ongoing violations o civil, political, economic, social and cul-

tural rights occurring in the country and renewed the man-

date o the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights

in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Koreaor one year. he

vote o 28 in avor, 5 against, and 13 abstentions reairmed

the Councils commitment to keep the human rights situation

under international scrutiny, despite North Koreas staunchreusal to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the hu-

man rights situation.

A shrinking group o states, including China, Cuba, Egypt,

Indonesia and Russia, remained opposed to the resolution. In

addition, China, Cuba and Indonesia argued that such man-

dates are counter-productive and that the appropriate mecha-

nism to promote international cooperation is the Councils

Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process.7Japan countered

this assertion by noting North Koreas reusal to accept any o

the 161 recommendations provided by other states at its UPR

working group session. Conversely, Nigeria abstained this ses-

sion ater opposing the resolution in 2009, while Brazil and

Djibouti voted in avor this session ater abstaining the previ-

ous year. he majority o the abstentions consisted o Arican

and Asian Group members,8along with Bolivia and Nicara-

gua. he remaining Latin American and Caribbean Group

(GRULAC) members joined a cross-regional group o statesin supporting the resolution.9

Occupied Palestinian Territory

Item 7 on the Councils agenda, also known as the Human

rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab erri-

tories, considerably inluences the political dynamics within

the Council and arguably attracts more public attention than

any other issue. he ourth year o the Councils work was

no exception, with the primary ocus directed toward the

UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conlict

(known inormally as the Goldstone Report10); the ollow-

up to the report; and the attack by Israel against a humanitar-

ian boat convoy on May 31, 2010.

Following the Israeli military siege on Gaza in late Decem-

ber 2008, the Council held its Ninth special session in Janu-

ary 2009, and established an urgent, high-level act-inding

mission to investigate the conlict.11he act-inding mission

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

6/22

5


led by Justice Richard Goldstone presented its indings at the

welth session in September 2009. he 575-page report con-

cluded that Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes and

possibly crimes against humanity. It recommended that un-

less each side conducted an independent investigation, the

UN Security Council should reer the situation to the Inter-

national Criminal Court. he majority o the states expressedpositive views about the report, although several had reserva-

tions about the recommendations. Israel and the United States

were the most vocally opposed, with Israel denouncing the

report as shameul and the US calling the report tainted

with unbalanced recommendations. During plenary discus-

sions on the report, states held negotiations on a drat reso-

lution that would provide ollow-up to the report, including

consideration o certain recommendations. Unortunately,

despite signiicant attention to the issue, several states were

unable to agree on the best course o action and consideration

o the resolution was postponed.

However, shortly ater the welth session concluded, 19

member states and 16 observer states requested a special ses-

sion on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestin-

ian Territory, including East Jerusalem12 to reopen discus-

sion on the report. he special sessionconsidered by some

to be an inappropriate use o the mechanismconvened on

October 15-16, 2009, and produced an intricate resolution en-

dorsing the Goldstone Report by a vote o 25 states in avor, 6

votes against and 11 abstentions.13Five states rerained rom

voting on the resolution.14All states, apart rom Israel and the

US, expressed the view that the Goldstone Report warrantedserious attention by the Council; however, many states also

emphasized the need or independent investigations by Israel

and the Palestinians into the alleged human rights violations

that occurred during the Gaza conlict.

Despite concerns it would duplicate eorts underway at the

General Assembly, Palestine and Pakistan (on behal o the OIC)

presented a ollow-up resolution to the Goldstone Report at the

hirteenth session. It was adopted by a vote o 29 states in avor,

6 against and 11 abstentions,15establishing a Committee o In-

dependent Experts to monitor and assess any domestic, legal

or other proceedings undertaken, particularly investigations o

human rights violations and war crimes by both the Govern-

ment o Israel and the Palestinian side.16Israel called the resolu-

tion a sinkhole or UN resources and claimed it was politically

motivated. Other states argued that establishing such a com-mittee was premature and expressed concern that the und es-

tablished by the resolution would only compensate Palestinian

victims. However, a larger majority than the councils irst ol-

low-up decision on the Goldstone Report supported the resolu-

tion, thereby indicating a growing dissatisaction with the lack

o investigative eorts by both parties. Four additional resolu-

tions addressing the human rights situation in the OP, the Syr-

ian Golan, Israeli settlements in the OP, and the right o the

Palestinian people to sel-determination17were also passed with

strong majorities, three o which only the US voted against.18

On May 31, 2010, Israeli orces boarded six ships sailing as the

Gaza Freedom Flotilla afer the ships reused inspection, re-

sulting in nine killed and dozens injured. Te attack took place

more than 20 miles rom the Gaza Strip, placing the ships in

international waters. Numerous non-governmental organi-

zations (NGOs) expressed outrage at the assault and called

or strong action rom the Council to address the situation.19

Consequently, at the Fourteenth session, the Council swifly

adopted the resolution, Te Grave Attacks by Israeli Forces

against the Humanitarian Boat Convoy,20 by a vote o 32

States in avor, 3 against and 9 abstentions.21 Te resolution

created an independent act-finding mission to investigate vio-lations o international law resulting rom the Israeli attacks.

Te United States argued that Israel should first have the op-

portunity to investigate the incident beore an international

mechanism is created. Norway countered that the circum-

stances around the incident and the number o people killed

requires an independent international investigation. Despite

Nicaraguas own ailure in supporting attention to other seri-

ous situations at the Council, it chastised the US or its alleged

politicization o the Council.

12 A/HRC/RES/S-12/1.13Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine and the United States voted against the resolution. Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,

Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Republic o Korea, Slovenia, and Uruguay abstained.14Angola, France, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, and the United Kingdom.15Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine, and the United States voted against the resolution. Belgium, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, France, Japan,

Madagascar, Mexico, Norway, Republic o Korea, and the United Kingdom abstained.16A/HRC/13/9.17A/HRC/RES/13/8; A/HRC/RES/13/5; A/HRC/RES/13/7; A/HRC/RES/13/6.18Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, Israeli settlements in the OP, including East Jerusalem, and the right o the Palestinian people to sel-

determination.19wenty-two NGOs rom around the world voiced support at the Council or action on the situation.20A/HRC/RES/14/1.21Italy, Netherlands, and the United States voted against the resolution. Belgium, Burkina Faso, France, Hungary, Japan, Republic o Korea, Slovakia, Ukraine,

and the United Kingdom abstained.

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

7/22

6


Myanmar (Burma)

In light o the first scheduled elections to take place in Myan-

mar since the military junta seized power twenty years ago,

the Council adopted two resolutions relating to the countrys

human rights situation during the ourth cycle. Te elections,

which took place in November 2010, were widely consideredby the international human rights community a veiled at-

tempt to legitimize military rule and a new Constitution that

essentially guarantees its continuance.

During the welfh session, the Council adopted a resolution

that expressed grave concern over the conviction and sentenc-

ing o Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the head o the main opposition

party, the National League or Democracy.22 Te resolution,

Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myan-

mar,23

introduced by the EU and co-sponsored by a group ocross-regional states,24called or the release o Aung San Suu

Kyi and other political prisoners to create conditions or inclu-

sive, transparent and credible democratic elections. Although

the resolution was adopted without a vote, China, Cuba, India

and Russia each disassociated rom the consensus arguing that

the Council has no mandate to pronounce on individual cases

or decisions o the judiciaries o sovereign states.25 While In-

donesia and the Philippines expressed reservations in support-

ing a country-specific resolution, their petition or the release

o political prisoners in Myanmar impelled them to support

the consensus. Tailand took a stronger stance, noting great

concern at the confinement o Aung San Suu Kyi and the sig-

nificant bearing it has on the elections.

At the Tirteenth session, the Special Rapporteur on the situ-

ation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. oms Ojea Quin-

tana, presented a report noting that the ruling junta has

been implicated in numerous violations, including extra-judicial killings, torture, rape and use o child soldiers, in

its conduct o military operations during Myanmars long-

running armed conflicts.26Mr. Quintana recommended that

the United Nations consider establishing a UN Commission

o Inquiry into possible crimes against humanity and war

crimes in Myanmar.

During the debate with the Special Rapporteur, human rights

organizations spoke in support o Mr. Quintanas report and

recommendations. Asian Forum or Human Rights and De-

velopment, CONECAS Direitos Humanos, and Worldview

International also expressed concerns regarding the legiti-

macy o the upcoming elections, adding in a joint statement

that the election laws are designed to exclude Daw Aung San

Suu Kyi and other prisoners o conscience rom any political

process ahead.27

Member states chose not to heed Mr. Quintanas call or a com-

mission o inquiry, but the Council did renew the Special Rap-

porteurs mandate or one year. In addition, the resolution on

the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar28 expressed

concerns that the newly adopted electoral laws are insufficient

or an inclusive political process and called upon the Gov-ernment o Myanmar to ensure a ree, transparent and air

electoral process. It also urged the Government to address the

consistent reports o torture and ill treatment o prisoners o

conscience. Once again, China, Cuba, India and Russia disas-

sociated rom the text, stating that they did not consider the

resolution helpul in improving the human rights situation.

Honduras

In June 2009, Honduras suffered a constitutional crisis afer

President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a non-binding

22In August 2009, Myanmars junta prolonged the detention o Aung San Suu Kyi or a urther 18 months under house arrest, thus preventing her participationin the 2010 elections.

23A/HRC/RES/12/20.24Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,

Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic oKorea, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, urkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

25Pakistan (on behal o the OIC) echoed their concerns but chose not to disassociate.26A/HRC/13/48.27Jointoral statement made to the Human Rights Council on March 15, 2010.28A/HRC/RES/13/25.
http://www.forum-asia.org/2010/100315-HRC13-FA-Item4-ID-Burma-Joint-FINAL.pdfhttp://www.forum-asia.org/2010/100315-HRC13-FA-Item4-ID-Burma-Joint-FINAL.pdf

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

8/22

7


reerendum that could potentially orm a constituent as-

sembly to reorm the constitution. Afer Honduras Supreme

Court ruled Zelayas poll illegal, the army ousted the Presi-

dent in a coup dtat.Te ollowing day, the newly declared,but internationally unrecognized, government suspended five

constitutional civil liberties o the Honduran people.29

In response, the Council quickly mobilized a strong condem-

natory resolution on the human rights crisis at its welfh

session. Te resolution on the Situation of human rights

in Honduras since the coup dtat of 28 June 2009, 30intro-

duced by GRULAC and co-sponsored by members o WEOG

and the Eastern European Group,31called or the end o hu-

man rights violations and the restoration o democracy. It also

requested that the UN High Commissioner or Human Rights

(High Commissioner) report on the situation at the Councils

Tirteenth session. Te resolution, adopted without a vote, re-ceived the ull support o the Council and the international hu-

man rights community. In the month ollowing the session, the

decree suspending human rights was officially revoked. On

November 29, 2010 democratic general elections were held,

with ormer Congressional President Pepe Lobo as the victor.

Te resolution on Honduras marked the first time action was

taken on a country that was not already on its agenda, as well

as the first time the Latin American and Caribbean Group

collectively tabled a resolution and showed leadership on a coun-

try situation at the Human Rights Council. It also demonstrated

the Councils ability to swifly and robustly respond to a demo-

cratic and human rights crisis.

ADDRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS

SITUATIONS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Troughout the ourth cycle, the Council adopted several oth-

er country-specific resolutions through consensus and with

the support o the countries concerned, including renewals

o the mandates on Cambodia and Somalia, continuance o

technical assistance to the Democratic Republic o the Congo

(DRC), and our new resolutions on Aghanistan, Guinea, Hai-

ti, and Kyrgyzstan. Te January 12, 2010 earthquake disaster in

Haiti prompted the calling o the Councils Tirteenth special

session on the support of the Human Rights Council to the

Recovery Process in Haiti.32Te session received resounding

support rom Council members and allowed or constructive

dialogue on the human rights aspect o the disaster.33

Contrary to the resolutions on North Korea, Myanmar and

Honduras, which were adopted under the Councils agenda

Item 4, Human rights situations that require the Councils at-

tention, these resolutions were tabled under agenda Item 10,

echnical assistance and capacity-building, which ocuses

heavily on providing technical assistance to the country con-

cerned to resolve the human rights situation.34echnical as-

sistance ofen consists o the Office o the High Commissioner

or Human Rights (OHCHR) aiding in the development okey human rights priorities in a host country, typically encom-

passing rule o law, undamental reedoms and civil society,

and access to education, training and public inormation.35

Cambodia

During the welfh session, the Special Rapporteur on the

situation of human rights in Cambodia, Mr. Surya Subedi, pre-

sented his first report to the Council. Many states that spoke

29Personal liberty, reedom o expression, reedom o movement, habeas corpus and reedom o association and assembly.30A/HRC/RES/12/14.31Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia,

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UnitedKingdom.

32A/HRC/S-13/1.33Te resulting resolution expressed concern over the consequences o the disaster on the enjoyment o human rights. It also invited the UN High Commissioner or

Human Rights, in collaboration with special procedures, to identiy and present areas or technical assistance with Haiti at the Fourteenth session o the Council.34Resolutions related to OP all under a separate agenda item devoted to the Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.35UN Secretary-General. echnical Assistance and Capacity-Building: Role and achievements o the OHCHR in assisting the Government and people o

Cambodia in the promotion and protection o human rights,August 5, 2009.
http://cambodia.ohchr.org/EN/PagesFiles/Reports/SG-RA-Reports.htmhttp://cambodia.ohchr.org/EN/PagesFiles/Reports/SG-RA-Reports.htmhttp://cambodia.ohchr.org/EN/PagesFiles/Reports/SG-RA-Reports.htmhttp://cambodia.ohchr.org/EN/PagesFiles/Reports/SG-RA-Reports.htmhttp://cambodia.ohchr.org/EN/PagesFiles/Reports/SG-RA-Reports.htmhttp://cambodia.ohchr.org/EN/PagesFiles/Reports/SG-RA-Reports.htm

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

9/22

8


36Japan, Sweden (on behal o EU), Singapore, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ireland, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Myanmar, United Kingdom, Nepal,Australia, United States, Tailand, Philippines, and China.

37Human Rights Watch, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Asian Forum or Human Rights and Development, and the International Federation o Human Rights

Leagues. States that raised concerns included Japan, Sweden (on behal o the EU), Malaysia, Canada, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Ireland, Australia,United States, United Kingdom, and Tailand.38ASEAN members include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Tailand and Vietnam.39A/HRC/RES/12/25.40Te Nation, Khmer Rouge ribunal in Jeopardy,Barbara Crossette, November 15, 2010.41In March 2009, the Council extended the mandate o the Independent Expert on Somalia, Mr. Shamsul Bari, or only six months.42Te Cairo Institute or Human Rights Studies, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation o Journalists made statements.43A/HRC/DEC/14/119.44Suggestions or improvement included additional international community support, greater coordination within the UN, the continuation o human rights

and humanitarian law training, and the strengthening o partnerships with local religious groups and leaders to increase security within internally displacedpersons camps.

45Amnesty International and Cairo Institute or Human Rights Studies, in collaboration with the East and Horn o Arica Human Rights Deender Project.NGOs also drew attention to continued attacks against civilians and called on states and UN agencies to enhance logistical, political and financial support tohuman rights deenders in Somalia and to investigate violations o human rights.

expressed support or improvements in Cambodia,36but sev-

eral states and civil society members expressed alarm about

restrictions on reedom o expression and ongoing land grab-

bing.37 In general, members rom the Association o South-

east Asian Nations (ASEAN) were ar less critical o Cambodia

than Western states and NGOs, although all states welcomed

the Special Rapporteurs report.38Human Rights Watch saidCambodia risked becoming an authoritarian, one-party state

with its increased suppression o civil society and repressive

tactics and called or the renewal o the mandate. Japan spon-

sored a resolution or Advisory services and technical assis-

tance for Cambodia,39which extends the mandate o the Spe-

cial Rapporteur or one year. Te resolution, co-sponsored by

Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand and Norway, requested

that Mr. Subedi report on the situation at the Fifeenth session

in September 2010. While the Government o Cambodia sup-

ported the resolution, it called or Mr. Subedi to ocus more

o his work on advisory services and technical cooperation,

seemingly to divert attention away rom government account-

ability or human rights violations.

In a sign o a potentially worsening situation in the country, in

November 2010, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen threat-

ened to shutter the High Commissioners office in Phnom

Penh, unless the UN removes its chie human rights repre-

sentative in Cambodia, Christophe Peschoux. Officials have

accused Mr. Peschoux o avoring opposition politicians afer

he spoke out on threatened political and economic rights, in-

cluding the beating o protesters and the illegal seizing o poor

Cambodians land or the use o politically well-connectedpeople or oreign companies.40

Somalia

Te dire human rights situation in Somalia was addressed

multiple times throughout the Councils ourth cycle. At the

welfh session, the Independent Expert on the situation of

human rights in Somalia, Mr. Shamsul Bari, presented his

report to the Council, which described the situation as one

o the worst humanitarian crises in the world today. He em-

phasized the need or collaboration between the international

community and the Government o Somalia. Council debate

ocused on Somalias security situation, the need to combat

the high level o impunity, and the need or multi-aceted fi-nancial assistance. Te Council renewed the mandate o the

independent expertor a period o one year, thus reinstating

the Councils compliance with its own rules on country man-

dates.41Te resolution, sponsored by Nigeria (on behal o the

Arican Group), also requested Mr. Bari to address the Coun-

cil with reports at the Tirteenth and Fifeenth sessions.

During the Councils Tirteenth session, states reiterated the

importance o the mandate on Somalia. Several NGOs made

statements calling or the UN to outline past and present human

rights violations to help decrease impunity; to hold a special

panel event or session in June 2010; and to establish an inde-

pendent commission o inquiry to investigate serious crimes.42

At the Fourteenth session, a decision on Assistance to Soma-

lia in the Field of Human Rights43was adopted by consen-

sus. Te decision, also sponsored by Nigeria (on behal o the

Arican Group) and supported by Somalia, called or a debate

to be held with the High Commissioner, Mr. Bari and other

stakeholders at the Fifeenth session. Te resulting dialogue

was the first country-specific panel attended at a very high

level by the Somali Government and UN officials. Te panel

ocused on assessing the effectiveness o technical cooperationand UN support in the promotion and protection o human

rights.44Despite calls by NGOsor the establishment o an in-

dependent and impartial commission o inquiry to investigate

international human rights and humanitarian law violations,

no clear strategy emerged to combat impunity.45However, the

Council decided by consensus to extend the mandate o the

Independent Expert or another year.
http://www.thenation.com/article/156444/khmer-rouge-tribunal-jeopardyhttp://www.thenation.com/article/156444/khmer-rouge-tribunal-jeopardyhttp://www.thenation.com/article/156444/khmer-rouge-tribunal-jeopardyhttp://www.thenation.com/article/156444/khmer-rouge-tribunal-jeopardy

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

10/22

9


Democratic Republic of the Congo

Despite serious, ongoing human rights violations in the Dem-

ocratic Republic o the Congo (DRC), including mass rape, the

Council passed a weak resolution on the human rights situa-

tion in the country during the Tirteenth session. Te resolu-

tion, Situation of human rights in the Democratic Republicof the Congo and the strengthening of technical coopera-

tion and consultative services,46was introduced by Nigeria

(on behal o the Arican Group) and co-sponsored by select

WEOG and Eastern European Group states.47Te resolution

called upon the international community and OHCHR to

enhance cooperation and support or the government o the

DRC, and welcomed the DRCs cooperation to improve the

situation. It also requested that the DRC continue efforts to

ensure protection o journalists and human rights deenders,

to fight against sexual violence, and to prosecute the perpetra-

tors o serious human rights violations. Te text invited seven

thematic special procedures to once again report jointly on

how best to assist the DRC to address the situation.48

France (on behal o EU members o the Council) stated that

the resolution contains positive eatures, but regretted that

the resolution did not reflect the extremely alarming human

rights situation in the DRC. Te EU also noted that only a

very small number o recommendations have been imple-

mented in the country. Te EU joined the US in asserting

that an Independent Expert on the situation o human rightsin the DRC (a mandate that was terminated in 2008) would

be the best way to address the DRCs problems. In general,

human rights groups were dissatisfied with the resolutions

scope and called on the government to implement the Special

Rapporteurs recommendations, abolish discriminatory laws

and hold perpetrators o sexual violence accountable.

Guinea

At the Tirteenth session, a resolution entitled, Strengthen-

ing of technical cooperation and consultative services in the

Republic of Guinea,49was adopted by consensus. Te resolu-

tion condemned the massacre and rapes o unarmed civilians

protesting the 2009 military coup dtat in Conakry. Te reso-

lution, introduced by Nigeria (on behal o the Arican Group)

and subsequently co-sponsored by WEOG and select Eastern

European states, invited the Guinean authorities to consider

implementing the recommendations on combating impunity,

protection or and the granting o assistance and appropriate

reparation to the victims o acts o violence, and reorm o the

justice and the security sectors. It also strongly appealed to

the international community to provide the transitional au-

thorities with assistance, including establishing a UN humanrights office in Guinea. In a public statement, Human Rights

Watch applauded the resolution or reaffirming the Councils

relevance and ability to address recent crises and longstanding

human rights abuse.50

Kyrgyzstan

At the Fourteenth session, the Council adopted by consen-

sus a resolution co-sponsored by Kyrgyzstan and the Unit-

ed States on echnical Assistance and Cooperation on

46A/HRC/13/22.47Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia,

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the ormerYugoslav Republic o Macedonia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

48Te Special Rapporteurs on violence against women, independence o judges and lawyers, right to the highest attainable standard o physical and mentalhealth and human rights deenders; and the Special Representatives o the Secretary-General on human rights o internally displaced persons, transnationalcorporations and other business enterprises and children and armed conflict.

49A/HRC/13/21.50Human Rights Watch, UN Human Rights Council: Positive Action on Burma, Guinea, North Korea: Support Ebbing in Rights Body or Problematic

Deamation o Religions Resolution,March 26, 2010.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/26/un-human-rights-council-positive-action-burma-guinea-north-koreahttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/26/un-human-rights-council-positive-action-burma-guinea-north-koreahttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/26/un-human-rights-council-positive-action-burma-guinea-north-koreahttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/26/un-human-rights-council-positive-action-burma-guinea-north-koreahttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/26/un-human-rights-council-positive-action-burma-guinea-north-koreahttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/26/un-human-rights-council-positive-action-burma-guinea-north-koreahttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/26/un-human-rights-council-positive-action-burma-guinea-north-korea

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

11/22

10


Human Rights in the Kyrgyz Republic,51ollowing the April

2010 overthrow o Kyrgyzstans government. Te resolution

strongly condemned the human rights violations committed

during the protests surrounding the change o government,

called on Kyrgyzstans government to uphold its commitment

to internationally recognized human rights and to carry out a

ull and transparent investigation o the ethnic violence ol-lowing the shif in government.

Russia stated that the resolution should be considered under

agenda Item 4,rather than Item 10, arguing that it contained

almost no elements related to providing technical assistance

to Kyrgyzstan and instead was ripe with calls or political

action. Russia also stressed that the adoption o the resolu-

tion under Item 10 should not set a precedent or the Coun-

cil, thus suggesting that countries should be brought up more

requently under Item 4. Although China argued the issue

was internal, it joined the consensus. Some members o civil

society urged the Council to call a special session on the situ-

ation, and later expressed disappointment that the resolution

did not create a mandate or investigate gross human rights

violations. However, Human Rights Watch characterized the

Councils resolution on Kyrgyzstan as a positive step in ad-

dressing human rights emergencies.52

Addressing Attacks on Afghan School Children

In a March 2010 letter sent to UN member states,53Human

Rights Watch called or the creation o a Special Rapporteur

on Aghanistan, citing the High Commissioners Tirteenthsession report describing wide scale violations in the wake o

reconciliation initiatives in Aghanistan. Te group asserted

that the United Nations, oreign military powers and donors

are not prioritizing the problem o impunity in the country

and that a Special Rapporteur could provide the necessary

reporting and advice to prevent urther deterioration o the

situation.

At the Fourteenth session, the Council adopted a new resolu-

tion on Aghanistan that ocused on the targeting o innocent

school children. Te resolution, Addressing attacks on school

children in Afghanistan,54 sponsored by Aghanistan, theUnited States and a cross-regional group o states,55condemned

the attacks and expressed solidarity with the Government o

Aghanistan in its effort to provide protection to school chil-

dren, while also reaffirming that governments have the primary

responsibility to protect their citizens. It also requested that the

High Commissioner increase the ocus on the situation o girl

school children in her reports on Aghanistan to the Council.

Te resolution neglected to address the ull range o rights

violations in Aghanistan or to call or accountability or theattacks on children. Te US noted that the resolution was in-

tentionally kept short and designed or consensus. However,

the US strategy, while successul in addressing an ongoing

concern in Aghanistan, ailed to heed the call or more robust

action on the situation as a whole.

51A/HRC/RES/14/14.52Human Rights Watch, UN: Rights Council Condemns Violations in Kyrgyzstan,June 21, 2010.53Human Rights Watch, Letter: Te situation o Human Rights in Aghanistan,March 18, 2010.54A/HRC/RES/14/15.55Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia,

Lithuania, Iceland, India, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, urkey and the United Kingdom.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/21/un-rights-council-condemns-violations-kyrgyzstanhttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/21/un-rights-council-condemns-violations-kyrgyzstanhttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/21/un-rights-council-condemns-violations-kyrgyzstanhttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/18/letter-situation-human-rights-afghanistanhttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/18/letter-situation-human-rights-afghanistanhttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/18/letter-situation-human-rights-afghanistanhttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/18/letter-situation-human-rights-afghanistanhttp://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/21/un-rights-council-condemns-violations-kyrgyzstan

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

12/22


11

0 30 60 90 120 150

SomaliaIraq

Honduras

Myanmar

Sudan

North Korea

China

Democratic Republic of the CongoSri Lanka

Iran 21

125

10

0

3

7

12

123

119

108

109

85

71

66

74

103

112

111

Country

ofConcern

# of References to Country of Concern

NGOs

States

SITUATIONS REQUIRING COUNCIL ATTENTION

July 2009 - June 2010

ITEM 4 ANALYSIS

1For the purposes of this analysis, statements were only tracked during the General Debate under the Councils Agenda Item 4, Human Rights Situations Requiring

Council Attention. During Council sessions, country situations already on the agenda of the Council are also referenced separately under Item 10 on Technical

assistance and capacity building, Item 7 on Human rights situations in Palestine and other occupied Arab Territories and during the Interactive Dialogue following

countries Special Rapporteurs reports; however, these meetings were not referenced in the creation of this analysis.2The next five countries scoring the highest in combined NGO and state references were Cuba, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Guinea.3Notably, the Occupied Palestinian Territory was only referenced a total of nine times during the cycle by NGOs and states, most likely because Israel and OPT have

their own agenda item (Item 7).

From July 2009-June 2010, the Human Rights Council heard

statements by states and NGOs on many alarming human rights

situations around the world requiring the Councils attention.1

The top ten countries with the highest number of references(NGOs and states combined) were Iran, Sri Lanka, the Dem-

ocratic Republic of the Congo, China, North Korea, Sudan,

Myanmar, Honduras, Iraq and Somalia.2 Despite calls for action

on all these situations, only half were addressed by the Coun-

ciland less were dealt with adequately.

Iran ranked as the highest country of concern by states and

NGOs, with 140 references total. Shockingly, the Council failed

to adopt a resolution condemning violations in the country or

heed the call to establish a special rapporteur to monitor the

situation. Although Sri Lanka ranked second with 123 refer-

ences, the High Commissioners calls for an independent inves-

tigation into possible laws of war violations in the country also

went unheeded. With 113 references, the situation in the DRC

came in third; however the resultant resolution did not reflect

the seriousness of the situation and failed to establish a mandate

to monitor the situation.3

Among the top 10 situations reflecting the combined priorities of

states and NGOs, the situation that received the strongest action

was the comprehensive and regionally-led resolution on Hon-

duras (8th), passed in response to the events surrounding the2009 coup dtat. The situations in Myanmar (7th), North Korea

(5th), and Somalia (10th) were also addressed by the Council,

with resolutions extending the special procedure mandates on

each country; however, calls for a commission of inquiry into

violations of international law in Myanmar did not materialize.

Meanwhile, China (4th), and Iraq (9th) saw no serious attention

in the form of a resolution or otherwise by the Council, while

consideration on the situation in Sudan (6th) was postponed.

NGOs separately ranked Iran as the most significant country of

concern (with 21 references); followed by Western Sahara and

India (with 16 references); Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Honduras, and

Iraq (with 12 each); and China (with 10). The pattern shows

that NGOs are focused on the chronic and emerging situations

not already on the Councils agenda, but which demand the at-

tention of the body.

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

13/22

12


56A/HRC/RES/12/5; A/HRC/RES/13/24; A/HRC/RES/13/13; A/HRC/RES/13/19; A/HRC/RES/13/26; A/HRC/DEC/13/117.57A/HRC/RES/12/21.58Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Madagascar,

Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, unisia, Vietnam and Zambia.59Cairo Institute or Human Rights Studies, HRC Revives Freedom o Expression But Imposes raditional Limitations on Rights & Allows Impunity or Gaza

War Crimes,March 10, 2010.60Angola, Bolivia, China, Cuba, India, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Arica and Zambia.61A/HRC/RES/14/9.62Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Congo, Cte dIvoire, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic o Iran, Lao Peoples

Democratic Republic, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela and Vietnam.

THEMATIC ISSUES

Resolutions dealing with the protection o vulnerable per-

sons, such as civilians and journalists in armed conflict, hu-

man rights deenders, victims o torture, counter-terrorism

measures, and human trafficking ound sweeping support

rom the Council and, as a result, were all passed by consen-sus.56Unortunately, this willingness to reach across regional

divides with genuine cooperation and dialogue in order to

reach a consensual outcome was not extended to resolutions

that included controversial concepts on deamation or nega-

tive stereotyping o religions and traditional values in a hu-

man rights ramework.

Traditional values and respect for cultural diversity

At the welfh session, the Council adopted a divisive resolu-

tion that attempted to rame the concept o traditional val-

ues in a human rights context. Te resolution, Promoting

human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better

understanding of traditional values of humankind,57was

sponsored by Russia and co-sponsored by members o the A-

rican and Asian Groups,58 in addition to Bolivia and Cuba.

Te text asserted that, all cultures and civilizations in their

traditions, customs, religions and belies share a common set

o values that belong to humankind in its entirety, but ailed

to speciy these values. It also requested that the High Com-

missioner convene a workshop on how a better understanding

o traditional values can contribute to the promotion and

protection o human rights.

Russia initially introduced the resolution at the Eleventh ses-

sion but withdrew it afer resistance rom several states and

human rights organizations that viewed it as an attempt to un-

dermine the universality o human rights. Russia reintroduced

the text at the welfh session arguing that the initiative was

aimed at strengthening human rights protection by building a

more common and universal approach to human rights val-

ues. States opposed to the resolution countered that the text

suggests that traditional values makes an exclusively positive

contribution to human rights and ails to recognize that many

harmul traditional practices are justified by invoking the

traditional values o a group or society. Australia (on behal

o Canada and New Zealand), Argentina, Chile, France (on be-

hal o the Councils EU member states), Japan and the United

States expressed disappointment that the main sponsors o the

text chose not to clariy what is meant by traditional values,

despite calls or them to do so during negotiations. Tey noted

that without reaffirming in the text that traditional valuesmust be in keeping with international human rights law, the

concept runs the risk o undermining the rights o women,

minorities and other vulnerable groups. Mexico echoed this

concern adding that the resolution could introduce cultural

relativism and a re-interpretation o established universal hu-

man rights standards.

Te Cairo Institute or Human Rights Studies issued a state-

ment asserting that the adoption o the resolution is highly

dangerous. Te group argued that Such a concept has been

used in the Arab region to justiy treating women as second

class citizens, emale genital mutilation, honor crimes, child

marriage and other practices that clearly contradict with in-

ternational human rights standards.59

Te polarizing resolution was adopted by a vote o 26 in a-

vor, 15 against, and six abstentions, contradicting the spon-

sors stated goal o broadening the consensus base or human

rights values. Members o each regional group withheld sup-

port or the resolution with Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico

and the Republic o Korea joining WEOG states in voting

no, while Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Ghana,

Ukraine and Uruguay abstained. All OIC members o theCouncil, along with other select states,60voted in avor o the

text.

In contrast, a resolution on the Promotion of the enjoyment

of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for cultural

diversity61was adopted at the Fourteenth session without a

vote. Te resolution, introduced by Cuba and cosponsored by

22 members o the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM),62along

with Armenia, China, El Salvador, Mexico, Russia, Serbia and

Uruguay, reaffirmed that cultural rights are an integral part

o human rights and called upon all governments to cooper-

ate with and assist the Independent Expert in the discharge
http://www.cihrs.org/English/NewsSystem/Articles/2517.aspxhttp://www.cihrs.org/English/NewsSystem/Articles/2517.aspxhttp://www.cihrs.org/English/NewsSystem/Articles/2517.aspxhttp://www.cihrs.org/English/NewsSystem/Articles/2517.aspxhttp://www.cihrs.org/English/NewsSystem/Articles/2517.aspxhttp://www.cihrs.org/English/NewsSystem/Articles/2517.aspx

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

14/22

13


o her mandate. As with the traditional values resolution,

France (on behal o the Councils EU member states) and the

US expressed concern that the concept o cultural diversity

may introduce cultural relativism and be used to justiy hu-

man rights abuses. However, unlike the traditional values

resolution, negotiations on the cultural diversity text led to

the inclusion o language that notes that no one may invokecultural diversity to inringe upon human rights guaranteed

by international law, nor to limit their scope, allowing the

resolution to be adopted by consensus.

Freedom of opinion and expression

At the welfh session, the Council saw the unanimous adop-

tion o a breakthrough resolution on Freedom of opinion

and expression.63Te recently divisive resolution achieved

consensus afer the main sponsors o the text, Egypt and the

United States, worked together in an effort to depolarize the

issue o limitations to reedom o expression. Te resolution,

which enjoyed co-sponsorship rom members o each region-

al group,64recognizedthe moral and social responsibilities o

the media to combat discrimination and incitement to hatred

and expressed concern over negative racial and religious

stereotyping. At the same time, the text reerences the im-

portance o reedom o expression, open dialogue and debate

in combating racism and intolerance. Most notably, the text

also avoided reerence to the OIC avored concept o deama-

tion o religions, a controversial concept ofen used by gov-

ernments to repress reedom o expression and discriminate

against minorities.

Te hard won compromise was not entirely welcomed by both

sides. Pakistan (on behal o the OIC) continued to assert that

deamation extends not only to individuals, but also to re-

ligions and belie systems and emphasized the need to com-

bat such instances. South Arica and Cuba argued that the

text represents a major step back, asserting their preerence

or stronger language that would have condemned negative

stereotyping o religions rather than religious stereotyping.

In contrast, the EU expressed concern regarding the resolu-

tions use o the term negative stereotyping; earing that the

language may be used to protect belie systems. Te EU also

opposed the notion o a moral and social responsibility o the

media, which it elt goes well beyond the special duties and

responsibilities o persons exercising the right to reedom o

expression as stated in Article 19 o the International Cov-

enant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

ARICLE 19, an NGO dedicated to the promotion and pro-

tection o reedom o expression, welcomed the resolution but

also expressed concern that the language on religious stereo-

typing attempts to protect religious ideas.65Te groupalso la-

mented the inclusion o a reerence to reporting requirements

o the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, arguing

that it goes against the spirit o the reedom o expression

mandate to monitor violations against the positive exercise o

the right.66

Te passage o the resolution gave hope to opponents o dea-

mation o religions that the OIC was moving toward a posi-

tion more in line with the international legal standards. How-

ever, the concept reemerged along the amiliar divide at the

ollowing session.

Defamation of religions

At the Tirteenth session, the Council adopted two contro-

versial resolutions under the agenda item on racism, racial

discrimination, xenophobia and related orms o intolerance

that dealt with the divisive concept o deamation o religions.

63A/HRC/RES/12/16.64Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cte dIvoire, Djibouti, El Salvador,

Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand,Nigeria, Palestine, Peru, Republic o Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, unisia, urkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Yemen andZambia.

65Article 19, United Nations: ARICLE 19 Cautiously Welcomes New Resolution on Freedom o Expression,October 2, 2009.66Te resolution makes reerence to Resolution 7/36, which requests the Special Rapporteurto report on instances in which the abuse o the right o reedom o

expression constitutes an act o racial or religious discrimination.
http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/united-nations-article-19-cautiously-welcomes-new-resolution-on-freedom-of-e.pdfhttp://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/united-nations-article-19-cautiously-welcomes-new-resolution-on-freedom-of-e.pdfhttp://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/united-nations-article-19-cautiously-welcomes-new-resolution-on-freedom-of-e.pdfhttp://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/united-nations-article-19-cautiously-welcomes-new-resolution-on-freedom-of-e.pdf

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

15/22

14


67A/HRC/RES/13/16.68In 2009, the resolution was adopted with 23 states in avor, 11 against, and 13 abstentions.69Brazil, Cameroon, Ghana, India, Japan, Madagascar and Mauritius.70Te Ad Hoc Committee was mandated by the Council to fill existing gaps in ICERD and to provide new normative standards aimed at combating all orms o

contemporary racism. Te request or contributions was adopted by the Committee on December 19, 2008 and endorsed by the Human Rights Council in itsresolution 10/30.

71 Letter rom Civil Society Organizations to State Representatives: Deamation o Religion at the 13th Session o the United Nations Human Rights Council,March 11, 2010.

72Notably, the EU disassociated itsel rom the consensus, stating that the mandate o the Ad Hoc Committee to orm new normative standards to ICERD is toorestrictive and that the EU is not convinced o the necessity to draf such standards.

73A/HRC/RES/13/18.

Te issue has been polarized between those, mostly OIC, states

that believe the existing international legal ramework should

be extended to provide protection against deamation o re-

ligions and those states, as well as UN and human rights ex-

perts, which argue that the ocus remain on the rights o in-

dividuals and groups against racial and religious intolerance.

Te resolution on Combating defamation of religions,67

was once again tabled by Pakistan on behal o the OIC (with

the exception o Cameroon) and co-sponsored by Bolivia

and Venezuela. Te resolution urged all states to provide ad-

equate protection against acts resulting rom deamation o

religions and deplored the use o the media to target reli-

gious symbols and venerated persons. Te text largely singled

out Islam as the target o deamation, drew particular atten-

tion to Islamophobia and specifically condemned the ban on

the construction o minarets. It also requested the Special

Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimi-

nation, xenophobia and related intolerance to report on all

maniestations o deamation o religions at the Councils

Fifeenth session.

Te United States stated that deamation o religions is com-

monly used by governments to justiy violations o civil lib-

erties and attacks on political and racial minorities. Argen-

tina, Brazil, Chile and France (on behal o the Councils EU

member states) rejected the texts unequal emphasis on Islam

noting that increased discrimination is not limited to only

some regions, some religions, and some belies. Brazil, France

and the US asserted that raming the debate on religious dis-crimination under the concept o deamation o religions

has proved unsuccessul at the Council. Te US added that

the resolution has become an instrument o division and has

ailed to provide real solutions or victims o racial and reli-

gious intolerance.

Although the resolution was passed by a vote o 20 in avor,

17 against, and eight abstentions, state support or the reso-

lution continued to decline, resulting in its lowest margin o

adoption to date.68A cross-regional group o states, includ-

ing Argentina, Mexico, the Republic o Korea, Uruguay and

Zambia, shifed their votes to oppose the resolution at this

session, while some Arican, Asian and GRULAC members69

continued to abstain along with Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Only Burkina Faso changed rom abstention in 2009 to voting

in avor in 2010. Te majority o the OIC, along with Bolivia,

China, Cuba, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Russia, and South

Arica, continued to support the resolution.

Efforts by the Arican Group to draf additional legally bind-

ing norms in the area o racism and discrimination also met

with strong opposition rom states and the international hu-

man rights community. During the Tirteenth session, two

competing resolutions concerning the utilization o proposals

submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Com-

plementary Standards to the International Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)70

were put orward to the Council. One text, submitted by the

US, requested that a determination be made by the Committee

on which proposals enjoy state consensus or successul im-

plementation. An alternative resolution, tabled by Nigeria (on

behal o the Arican Group), requested that the Committee

elaborate additional protocols to ICERD, which could include

proposals that were not supported by all UN member states.

In a letter to member states o the Council, 47 NGOs, includ-

ing the Democracy Coalition Project, warned that the Ari-

can Group text could allow or the development o a legally

binding instrument that includes the concept o deamation

o religions. We strongly believe that any attempt to codiy

deamation o religions in international law will have highlydamaging and longterm implications or the international pro-

tection o the right to reedom o expression, the letter states.71

Te US withdrew its own text in exchange or substantial edits

to the Arican Group version, which allowed it to be adopted

by consensus.72Te final resolution, Elaboration of comple-

mentary standards to ICERD,73 is largely procedural and

simply takes note o the views expressed during the second

session o the Ad Hoc Committee. Te Ad Hoc Committee

has decided to adjourn its third session until an undetermined

date in 2011.
http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/pdf/Letter.Defamation.HRC13.Final.11.3.10.pdfhttp://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/pdf/Letter.Defamation.HRC13.Final.11.3.10.pdf

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

16/22

15


74A/HRC/14/L.21.75Te OIC also sought an amendment that would require the mandate holder to ocus his/her report on the implementation o its suggested provisions.76HRC Resolution 6/37, which renewed the mandate o the Special Rapporteur in 2007, was adopted by a vote o 29 in avor, zero against, and 18 abstentions.

All OIC states, as well as China, South Arica, and Sri Lanka abstained, reusing to endorse the resolutions guarantee o the undamental right to change onesreligion or belie, preerring language that urged respect or norms about the right to change ones religion.

77A/HRC/RES/14/11.78Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,

Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Poland, Peru, Portugal, Republic o Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, urkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom,Uruguay, the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia.

79A/HRC/RES/12/23.80A/RES/41/128, UN Declaration on the Right to Development, December 4, 1986.81More specifically, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Republic o Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine,

the United Kingdom, and the United States abstained.82Kimberly Curtis, Te Future o Human Rights in Arica. September 29, 2009.

Freedom of religion or belief

Te issue o stereotyping and incitement to religious hatred

resuraced at the Fourteenth session during heated negotia-

tions on the renewal o the mandate of the Special Rapporteur

on freedom of religion or belief. Pakistan (on behal o the OIC)

sought additional provisions that would reocus the resolutiontoward the protection o religious ideas and belies.74Specifi-

cally, it sought to require the mandate holder to examine in-

stances o incitement to religious hatred maniested in par-

ticular by derogatory stereotyping, involving the use o the

media or any other means, and to recommend appropriate

remedial measures.75

Te OIC provisions met with strong opposition rom states,

particularly the EU, which rejected shifing the ocus o the

Special Rapporteur away rom impediments to reedom o

religion or belie suffered by individuals. A compromise was

struck that removed the reporting requirements to the man-

date holder and instead expressed concerns regarding incite-

ment to religious hatred and derogatory stereotyping against

persons rather than religion per se in the perambulatory sec-

tion o the text. In addition, the OIC won the inclusion o a

provision that called upon the Special Rapporteur to work

with mass-media organizations to promote an atmosphere o

respect and tolerance or religious and cultural diversity. Te

successul negotiations led to the re-establishment o a con-

sensual adoption o the resolution.76

Te final resolution, Freedom of Religion or Belief: Man-date of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or

Belief,77 introduced by Spain and co-sponsored by a large

cross-regional group o states78, extended the mandate o the

Special Rapporteur or a urther three years. Afer the texts

adoption, Egypt reiterated its concern at the negative ste-

reotyping o religions, insults to religious personalities, holy

books, scriptures and symbols and urged the Council to

adopt measures that address this trend.

Right to Development

At the welfh session, a resolution on the Right to Develop-

ment79was introduced by Egypt (on behal o NAM) and co-

sponsored by Brazil and Cameroon. Te concept o this right

entails ull sovereignty over natural resources; sel-determi-

nation; popular participation in development; equality o op-portunity; and the creation o avorable conditions or the en-

joyment o other civil, political, economic, social and cultural

rights.80Te resolution seeks to develop a set o standards or

the implementation o the Right to Development, with the in-

tent to develop an international convention that would legally

bind states to implement the right. In addition, it attempts to

elevate the Right to Development to the same level as other

human rights and undamental reedoms, as well as requests

OHCHR to allocate adequate resources or the implementa-

tion o the resolution. Te resolution was adopted by a vote o

33 states in avor, zero against and 14 abstentions.81Te West-

ern European and Others Group, select Eastern European

Group states, Japan and the Republic o Korea abstained rom

the vote. In a welcome and historic change, the United States

chose to abstain on the resolution rather than vote no. Te

United States expressed its willingness to engage in the work-

ing group on the Right to Development, but said it still had

reservations about giving the right legally binding status. Te

EU joined the US in abstaining on the resolution, despite hav-

ing joined consensus the previous year, citing similar opposi-

tion to the development o a legally binding status on states.

Protection of Human Rights Defenders

During the welfh session, the President o the Gambia de-

livered a speech on national television where he announced,

I will kill anyone who wants to destabilize this country. I you

think that you can collaborate with so-called human rights de-

enders, and get away with it, you must be living in a dream

word. I will kill you, and nothing will come out o it. 82Human

rights organizations rom around the world rapidly sent a joint
http://humanrights.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/09/29/the-future-of-human-rights-in-africa/http://humanrights.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/09/29/the-future-of-human-rights-in-africa/

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

17/22

16


letter to the Council President, stating that these remarks con-

stitute not only a threat to the right to lie and physical integ-

rity o Gambian human rights deenders and their supporters,

but may have implications or the saety o other human rights

workers whose headquarters are in the Gambia.83Te group

urged him to adopt a presidential statement denouncing the

Gambian Presidents statement. However, this urgent call wasmet with silence.

It was not until the Tirteenth session that the Council shed

light on this issue with the consensual adoption o a resolution

entitled, Protection of Human Rights Defenders,84which

urged states to prevent and protect against attacks on human

rights deenders. Although the mandate on human rights

deenders is not up or renewal until 2011, several states, in-

cluding Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan

(on behal o the OIC), Russia, and Sri Lanka, attempted to

dilute the mandate by altering the definition o human rights

deenders, arguing that individuals wrongly use the term or

their own gain.

In response, several prominent human rights organizations

issued a joint statement noting with concern the attempt by

some states to create new restrictions and undermine the UN

Declaration on Human Rights Deenders85a trend which was

also reflected in Ms. Sekaggyas second annual report.86Sad-

ly, the importance o protection or human rights deenders

was reinorced with the murder o prominent human rights

deender, Floribert Chebeya Bahizire, who was killed in the

DRC in early June 2010. Troughout the Fourteenth session,

numerous NGOs and states publicly expressed their grie

upon hearing o his death and called on the Council to inves-

tigate his murder.87

CONCLUSION

In its first ull year since the United States joined the Coun-

cil, the body has seen significant improvements in addressing

human rights violations in countries that have chosen to co-

operate with the body. However, states remained divided on

how to address serious human rights situations in countries

that reused cooperation. Bangladesh, Cuba, China, Egypt, In-

donesia, Pakistan and Russia espoused a principled position

against country resolutions, arguing that such resolutions that

do not enjoy the consent o the state are counter-productive

in advancing human rights issues. Te Philippines and Russia

expressed particular reservation to the adoption o two resolu-

tions concerning Myanmar, arguing that the requency o such

resolutions would not promote dialogue with the country. No-

tably, contrary to their own position on this point, these same

states supported the numerous country resolutions concern-

ing the OP, even though Israel has consistently opposed their

adoption.88

Such broad support on issues related to the Occupied Palestin-

ian erritory allowed the Council to adopt robust resolutions

that contained strong language against violations and concrete

ollow-up mechanisms, such as the resolution on the Israeli

attacks on the humanitarian boat convoy, which quickly dis-

patched a act-finding mission to investigate the incident. Te

Councils action on Honduras served as an important model

o successul and swif action by the body. States in the Latin

American and the Caribbean region not only took leadership

on this serious situation, they mobilized the countries o the

region to successully reverse an assault on democratic gover-

nance. On the other hand, the resolution pertaining to Aung

San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar did not

enjoy the collective support o the Asian region despite gen-

eral agreement that their continued imprisonment prevents

83Te group o 24 NGOs, consisting largely o Arican organizations, sent the letter to the Council President on September 28, 2009.84A/HRC/RES/13/13.85Human Rights Watch, International Service or Human Rights, Cairo Institute or Human Rights Studies, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Asian

Forum or Human Rights and Development, Bahai International Community, International Federation or Human Rights, and CIVICUS. In addition, ArcInternational and the Egyptian initiative or Personal Rights said they share the views expressed in this statement.

86Sekaggyas report notes several troubling trends including a growing characterization o human rights deenders as terrorists, enemies o the state orpolitical opponents by state officials and state-controlled media. Sekaggya also noted that there had been no improvement in the level o violence againsthuman rights deenders since the adoption o the Declaration on Human Rights Deenders in 1998.

87Te Government o the DRC has initiated an investigation, the results o which have yet to be announced at the publishing o this report.88In addition, Bangladesh, Egypt and Indonesia joined the consensus on the resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar.

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

18/22

17


89Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the situation has deteriorated dramatically in Iran. Hundreds o ordinary citizens have suffered serious violationsincluding death, arbitrary detention, show trials, torture, and persecution o amily members to silence dissent.

90See the section o this report entitled, Item 4: Human Rights Situations Requiring the Attention o the Council.91Speaking at a May 2009 Security Council meeting aimed at reviving peace talks, US Ambassador Susan Rice repeated callsby the Obama Administration or a

Palestinian state, an end to violence and a halt to Israeli settlements.92ailoring the Human Rights Councils response to situations o violations o human rights ,October 15, 2010.93A concerned state should meet three basic requirements: 1) acknowledge the violations; 2) allow unhindered access to inormation by independent actors; and

3) demonstrate a verifiable commitment to remedy these violations through concrete action.

inclusive and credible democratic elections in the country. On

Guinea and Kyrgyzstan, positive action by the Council set up

reporting mandates by the UN High Commissioner or Human

Rights to keep the international community appraised o the

situations in these countries.

Resolutions that ocused largely on providing technical assis-tance to a country drew greater support rom the Council and

increased access to the concerned state, but in some cases, did

not reflect the gravity o the human rights situation or the need

or accountability such as the Democratic Republic o the Con-

go and Cambodia.

Unortunately, many serious and emerging human rights emer-

gencies throughout the world received limited or no attention

despite numerous calls rom member states and NGOs or ac-

tion by the Council. Troughout the year, human rights organi-

zations repeatedly urged UN member states to support a robust

response to the ongoing post-election crackdown on humanrights deenders, civil society and peaceul protestors in Iran

since its disputed 2009 Presidential elections.89Over the year,

states raised the situation in Iran more than any other country

during the general debate on human rights situations requir-

ing the Councils attention.90Te US and Norway led a cross-

regional group o more than 50 states in a statement expressing

concern over mounting violations in Iran despite a coordinated

effort by Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Cuba, Nicara-

gua, and Malaysia to block the statement rom being read at

the Council. Regardless o numerous appeals over the year-long

crisis, the Council missed successive opportunities to adopt a

resolution and establish a special rapporteur mandate to moni-

tor the situation. Te Council also ignored similar petitions or

the creation o mandates on the grave human rights situations

in the DRC, Sri Lanka, and Aghanistan.

Despite its commendable efforts to improve the Councils ap-

proach toward country-situations, the United States remained

the only state that voted against all OP related resolutions,

including those on Israeli settlements in the OP and the

right o the Palestinian people to sel-determination, despite

the Obama Administrations support or a two-state solution

to the conflict.91

Te Councils unbalanced response to serious human rights

violations indicate the need or improvements to the bodys

unctioning. Te ongoing five-year review provides govern-

ments, NGOs, and human rights experts a critical opportunity

to re-examine the bodys effectiveness in promoting and pro-

tecting human rights since its creation in 2006. Sixteen NGOs,

including the Democracy Coalition Project, presented a pa-

per that seeks to strengthen the Councils response to human

rights violations based on the level o genuine cooperation o-

ered by governments.92Te paper challenges a growing con-

tention among some states that the work o the Council should

solely be based on the principles o cooperative dialogue. Te

groups assert that in order or cooperative approaches to yield

results, it is important to draw an objective distinction be-

tween governments that engage in genuine cooperation with

the Council and its mechanisms, and those that do not.93Tey

argue that i such distinctions are not drawn, there is a risk

that some governments will use the idea o cooperation as a

way o avoiding scrutiny or accountability rather than to ad-

dress real human rights challenges. o enhance the Councils

ability to address a broader range o situations, the authors

have urged UN member states to support the establishment onew tools that allow independent actors such as the UN High

Commissioner or Human Rights, the UN Secretary General,

and UN Special Procedures to bring urgent country situations

to the Councils attention or discussion.
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2009/may/126461.htmhttp://www.demcoalition.org/site09-2008/pdf/pdf/Cooperation%20NGO%20proposal%202011%20Review.pdfhttp://www.demcoalition.org/site09-2008/pdf/pdf/Cooperation%20NGO%20proposal%202011%20Review.pdfhttp://www.demcoalition.org/site09-2008/pdf/pdf/Cooperation%20NGO%20proposal%202011%20Review.pdfhttp://www.demcoalition.org/site09-2008/pdf/pdf/Cooperation%20NGO%20proposal%202011%20Review.pdfhttp://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2009/may/126461.htm

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

19/22

18


RESOLUTION POSITIONS OUTCOME

Mandate on theDemocratic Peoples

Republic of Korea

(North Korea)

Favored the renewal (28)Abstained (13)

Against the renewal (5)

During the Thirteenth session, the resolution on the human rightssituation in North Korea was passed by a vote of 28 states in

favor, five against, and 13 abstentions. The resolution deplored the

grave, widespread and systematic human rights abuses in North

Korea and extended the mandate on North Korea for one year. It

also urged the Government of the North Korea to cooperate fully

with the Special Rapporteur and to permit him unrestricted access

to visit the country.

Resolution on the grave

attacks by Israeli forces

against the humanitarian

boat convoy

Voted in favor (32)

Abstained (9)

Voted against (3)

During the Fourteenth session, a resolution condemning the

attack by Israeli forces against the humanitarian flotilla of ships

was adopted by a vote of 32 states in favor, three against and

nine abstentions. The resolution requested that the International

Committee of the Red Cross provide information on the conditionof the detained and injured persons. It also decided to dispatch

an international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of

international law resulting from the Israeli attacks.

Resolution on

traditional values of

human kind

Voted against (15)

Abstained (6)

Voted in favor (26)

During the Twelfth session, a resolution on traditional values

was adopted by a vote of 26 states in favor, 15 against and six

abstentions. The resolution asserted the importance of traditional

values but failed to reaffirm that no state has the right to invoke

traditional values to counter, limit or avoid their international

human rights law obligations. It also failed to reference the

harmful impact of some traditional practices on human rights.

Furthermore, it requested that the High Commissioner convenea workshop on how a better understanding of traditional values

can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights.

Resolution on

combating defamation

of religions

Voted against (17)

Abstained (8)

Voted in favor (20)

During the Thirteenth session, the Council once again adopted

a resolution on combating defamation of religions by a vote

of 20 states in favor, 17 against and eight abstentions. The

resolution urged all states to provide adequate protection against

defamation of religions, a controversial concept which aims to

extend protection to religious ideas, beliefs and symbols and to

limit freedom of expression. In addition, the resolution largely

singled out Islam as the target of defamation and drew particular

attention to Islamophobia.

KEY RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

July 2009 June 2010

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

20/22

19


RESOLUTION

Voted in Favor of

Resolution on the

Democratic Peoples

Republic of Korea

Voted in Favor of

Resolution on the

Grave Attacks by

Israeli Forces against

the Humanitarian

Boat Convoy

Voted Against

Resolution on

Traditional Values of

Humankind

Voted Against

Resolution on

Combating

Defamation of

Religion

COUNCIL SESSION 13th Session 14th Session 12th Session 13th Session

MEMBER STATES

Angola Absent

Argentina

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Belgium

Bolivia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Brazil

Burkina Faso

Cameroon Absent

Chile

China Cuba

Djibouti

Egypt

France

Gabon Absent Absent

Ghana

Hungary

India

Indonesia

Italy

Japan

Jordan

Kyrgyzstan

Madagascar Absent

Mauritius

Mexico

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Nigeria

Norway

Pakistan

Philippines

Qatar

Republic of Korea

Russia Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Slovakia

Slovenia

South Africa

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

Uruguay

Zambia Absent

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

21/22

ABOUT DEMOCRACY COALITION PROJECT

he Democracy Coalition Project is a nongovernmental organization that conducts re-

search and advocacy relating to the advancement o democracy and human rights interna-

tionally, particularly through the UN Human Rights Council and other multilateral organs.

Begun in June 2001 as an initiative o the Open Society Institute, the Democracy Coalition

Project (DCP) ocuses its work on advocacy, research, and coalition-building toward thegoal o democratic development as an essential element o international peace and human

development.

DCP plays a leadership role in building an international coalition o organizations to mon-

itor the oreign policies o governments as they relate to human rights and democracy

promotion. DCP also works to encourage a more transparent and active Community o

Democracies and an active Democracy Caucus at the United Nations. As o July 2009, DCP

enjoys consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC, which allows or more direct

engagement with UN bodies and mechanisms.

THE DEMOCRACY COALITION PROJECTS POLICY AGENDAINCLUDES:

Strengthening the work o the United Nations in the area o human rights and democratic

development

Monitoring the oreign policies o governments as they relate to human rights and de-

mocracy promotion

Promoting reorm and strengthening o the United Nations through civil society partici-

pation and coalition-building

Improving international responses to democratic crises

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

racy Baumgardt and Jennier Henrichsen researched and co-wrote this report. Dokhi Fas-

sihian provided editorial supervision.

CONTACT US

Democracy Coalition Project

1730 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, 7th Floor

Washington, DC 20006, U.S.A.

Ph. +1 202.721.5630

Fax +1 202.721.5658

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/10/2019 2009-2010 HRC Report Card

22/22

Democracy Coalition Project

1730 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, 7th Floor

Washington, DC 20006, U.S.A.

www demcoalition org

2009-2010 HRC Report Card

Documents

Transcript of 2009-2010 HRC Report Card