|
|
|
|
United Nations Human Rights Council
|
| |
|
| |
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations System. The UNHRC is the successor to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly. Based in Geneva, the UNHRC's main purpose is to make recommendations to the General Assembly about situations in which human rights are violated. The UNHRC has no authority except to make recommendations to the General Assembly.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'United Nations Human Rights Council' Start a new discussion about 'United Nations Human Rights Council' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations System. The UNHRC is the successor to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly. Based in Geneva, the UNHRC's main purpose is to make recommendations to the General Assembly about situations in which human rights are violated. The UNHRC has no authority except to make recommendations to the General Assembly. The General Assembly has no authority except to advise the Security Council.
The General Assembly established the UNHRC by adopting a resolution (A/RES/60/251) on 15 March 2006. The United States, the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Israel voted against the resolution. The United States said the UNHRC did not have adequate provision to keep states which abused human rights from being on the Council. Belarus, Iran, and Venezuela abstained from voting. Venezuela said that the resolution had some troubling provisions, including the implicit permission to states to intervene in the internal affairs of other states.
On 18 June 2007, one year after holding its first meeting, the UNHRC adopted its Institution-building package, which provides elements to guide it in its future work. Among the elements was the Universal Periodic Review. The Review will assess the human rights situations in all 192 UN Member States. Another element is an Advisory Committee, which serves as the UNHRC’s think tank, and provides it with expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues, that is, issues which pertain to all parts of the world. Another element is a Complaints Procedure, which allows individuals and organizations to bring complaints about human rights violations to the attention of the Council.
The UNHRC works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and engages the United Nations' Special Procedures.
Council structure
The members of the General Assembly elect the members who occupy the UNHRC's forty-seven seats. The term of each seat is three years, and no member may occupy a seat for more than two consecutive terms. The seats are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group.
The resolution establishing the UNHRC states that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights." The General Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of its members, suspend the rights and privileges of a member if that member has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights.
Members
Members of the UNHRC are elected to staggered three-year terms. The first election of members was held on 9 May 2006. The current members, with the year that the mandate expires in parentheses, are the following, re-elected members are in italics:
| African States (13)
| Asian States (13)
| Eastern European States (6)
| Latin American & Caribbean States (8)
| Western European & Other States (7) |
|---|
 (2010) |  (2011) |  (2009) |  (2011) |  (2009) |  (2011) |  (2009) |  (2010) |  (2010) |  (2011) |  (2009) |  (2009) | (2009) | (2011) |  (2009) |  (2009) |  (2010) |  (2011) |  (2011) |  (2010) |  (2010) |  (2010) |  (2010) |  (2009) | (2010) |  (2011) |  (2011) |  (2011) |  (2009) |  (2009) |  (2011) |  (2009) | |  (2010) | (2011) | |  (2009) | |  (2009) | |  (2009) |  (2011) | | | |  (2009) | (2010) | | | |  (2009) |  (2010) | | | |  (2010) |  (2009) | | | |  (2011) | (2011) | | | | |
2007 Group
2008 Group
2009 Group
- African States: Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritius, Nigeria, and Senegal.
- Asian States: Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia.
- Eastern European States: Azerbaijan, and the Russian Federation.
- Latin American & Caribbean States: Cuba, Mexico, and Uruguay.
- Western European & Other States: Canada, Germany, and Switzerland.
Their terms of office began on 19 June 2006. On 19 May it was announced that Mexico would serve as the Council's chair during its first year of existence.
The replacement for the "2007 Group", was duly elected by the General Assembly on 17 May 2007, known as the 2010 Group, the year when their terms expire.In this election Angola and Egypt were elected to the council,where as Belarus was rejected.
2010 Group
The replacement for the "2008 Group", was duly elected by the General Assembly on 21 May 2008, known as the 2011 Group, the year when their terms expire.
2011 Group
- African States: Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Zambia.
- Asian States: Bahrain, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea.
- Eastern European States: Slovakia, Ukraine.
- Latin American & Caribbean States: Argentina, Brazil, Chile.
- Western European & Other States: France, United Kingdom.
Presidents
Mr. Luis Alfonso de Alba (Mexico) 19 June 2006 to 18 June 2007.
Mr. Doru Romulus Costea (Romania) 19 June 2007 to 18 June 2008.
Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi (Nigeria) 19 June 2008 to 18 June 2009.
Advisory Committee
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights was the main subsidiary body of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights Council extended its mandate for one year until June 2007. It was composed of 26 elected human rights experts whose mandate was to conduct studies on discriminatory practices and make recommendations to ensure that racial, national, religious and linguistic minorities are protected by law.
The Human Rights Council assumed responsibility for the Sub-Commission when it replaced the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2006. On 30 June 2006 the Council resolved to extend the Sub-Commission's mandate on an exceptional one-year basis and subject to the Council's subsequent review. The Sub-Commission met for the final time in August 2006; among the recommendations it adopted at that session was one for the creation of a Human Rights Consultative Committee as a standing body to assist the Human Rights Council.
The 26 members of the Sub-Commission divided their work between eight Working Groups which examined the following issues:
- Working Group on Administration of Justice
- Working Group on Communication
- Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery
- Working Group on Indigenous Populations
- Working Group on Minorities
- The Social Forum
- Working Group on Transnational Corporations
- Working Group on Terrorism
In September 2007 the Human Rights Council decided to create a new Advisory Committee to provide the Council with expert advice.
Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council
"Special procedures" is the name given to the mechanisms established by the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights and continued by the Human Rights Council to monitor human rights violations in specific countries or examine global human rights issues. Special procedures can be either individuals (called "Special Rapporteurs", "Special Representatives" or "Independent Experts") who are leading experts in a particular area of human rights, or working groups usually composed of five members. In order to preserve their independence they do not receive pay for their work.
Various activities can be undertaken by special procedures, including responding to individual complaints, conducting studies, providing advice on technical cooperation, and engaging in promotional activities. The special mechanisms are categorised according to thematic mandates and country mandates. Currently, there are 29 thematic and 13 country mandates under special procedures. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights provides staffing and logistical support to aid each mandate-holder in carrying out their work.
During its first session (19-30 June 2006), the Human Rights Council decided to extend the special procedures mandates for one year, subject to further review. An intergovernmental working group has been established to assess the mandates and make recommendations for improving their effectiveness.
Special procedures also include Working Groups made up of legal experts who monitor and investigate specific human rights concerns. There are currently four such groups:
- Working Group on people of African descent
- Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
- Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
- Working Group on the use of mercenaries to impede the right of peoples to self-determination
Special Procedure Candidates
In 2008, The Human Rights Council elected 18 experts to make up its new Advisory Committee. In addition, The Council also approved candidates for its Special Procedures on the right to adequate housing, the right to food, human rights of indigenous people, sale of children, effects of economic reform policies, human rights in Myanmar, human rights in the Palestinian territories, human rights and extreme poverty, contemporary forms of slavery, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, people of African descent, human rights in Somalia and human rights defenders
The following is a list of appointed candidates:
Raquel Rolnik (Brazil), Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context
Olivier de Schutter (Belgium), Special Rapporteur on the right to food
James Anaya (United States), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people
Najat M'jid Maala (Morocco), Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
Cephas Lumina (Zambia), Independent Expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights
Thomas Ojea Quintana (Argentina), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar;
Richard Falk (United States), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967
Maria Magdalenan Sepulveda (Chile), Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty
Gulnara Shahinian (Armenia), Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences.
International Response
UN permanent ambassador Itzhak Levanon (Israel) said "that as the list of candidates for Special Procedures mandate holders was put forward today, he was overwhelmed at the profound sense of lost opportunity. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories was hopelessly unbalanced. This mandate was redundant at best and malicious at worst. It was impossible to believe that out of a list of 184 potential candidates, the eminently wise members of the Consultative Group honestly had made the best possible choice for this post."
Warran Tichenor (United States) said, "that the Special Procedures, including country mandates, allowed the Human Rights Council an opportunity to view, monitor and help certain countries develop and improve their human rights situations. The United States respected the integrity of the procedure to elect candidates but expressed its concern on the mandate holder selected for the task of assessing the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories."
Marius Grinius (Canada) said, "that the appointment of this slate of Special Procedures mandate holders marked an important milestone in the development of the Council. The Special Procedures had been referred to as the crown jewels of the United Nations human rights system. The efforts which had gone into the presentation of this list were fully appreciated. Canada hoped that Members could respect the integrity of the agreed process, in which no State should have a veto over candidates. However, based on the writings of one of the candidates, the nominee for the mandate on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Canada expressed serious concern about whether the high standards established by the Council would be met by this individual. Therefore, Canada dissociated itself from any Council decision to approve the full slate."
Mohammad Abu-Koash (Palestine) said "It was ironic that Israel which claimed to be representing Jews everywhere was campaigning against a Jewish professor who had been nominated for the post of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The candidate was the author of 54 books on international law. Palestine doubted that those who had campaigned against him had read that many books. The candidate's nomination was a victory for good sense and human rights, as he was a highly qualified rapporteur. If Israel was concerned about human rights it would have ended its prolonged occupation."
Controversial country-specific rapporteurs
The UN Human Rights Council has been meeting to determine some of the fundamental procedures that will be used by the body in years to come. It is proposed that "country-specific “special procedures”—the special experts, representatives and rapporteurs who investigate human rights abuses in particular countries—be abolished, particularly those assigned to Cuba, Belarus, Burma and North Korea." Another issue being considered is "whether outside experts and nongovernmental organizations will be able to play a key role in the review; currently, documents provided by the state in question appear to comprise the bulk of the evidence used for the review."
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
A amendment to the duties of the , passed by the Human Rights Council on 28 March 2008, has given rise to sharp criticism from western countries and human rights NGO's. The additional duty is phrased thus:
- (d) To report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination, taking into account articles 19 (3) and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression
(quoted from p. 67 in the official draft record of the council). The amendment was proposed by Egypt and Pakistan and passed by 27 votes to 15 against, with three abstentions with the support of other members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, China, Russia and Cuba. As a result of the amendment over 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the main resolution - to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur - withdrew their support, although the resolution was carried by 32 votes to 0, with 15 abstentions. Inter alia the delegates from India and Canada protested that the Special Rapporteur now has as his/her duty to report not only infringements of the rights to freedom of expression, but in some cases also employment of the rights, which "turns the special rapporteur's mandate on its head".
Outside the UN, the amendment was criticised by organizations including Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and the International Humanist and Ethical Union, all of whom share the view that the amendment threatens freedom of expression.
In terms of the finally cast votes, this was far from the most controversial of the 36 resolutions adapted by the 7'th session of the Council. The highest dissents concerned combating defamation of religions, with 21 votes for, 10 against, and 14 abstentions (resolution 19, pp. 91-97), and the continued severe condemnation of and appointment of a Special Rapporteur for North Korea, with votes 22-7 and 18 abstentions (resolution 15, pp. 78-80). There were also varying degrees of dissent for most of the various reports criticising Israel; while on the other hand a large number of resolutions were taken unanimously without voting, including the rather severe criticism of Myanmar (resolutions 31 and 32)., and the somewhat less severe on Sudan (resolution 16).
Position of the United States
In regard to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the position of the United States is: "human rights have been a cornerstone of American values since the country's birth and the United States is committed to support the work of the UN Commission in promoting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. U.S. President George W. Bush declared that the United States would not seek a seat on the Council, saying it would be more effective from the outside. He did pledge, however, to support the Council financially. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We will work closely with partners in the international community to encourage the council to address serious cases of human rights abuse in countries such as Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, and North Korea."
The U.S. State Department said on 5 March 2007 that, for the second year in a row, the United States has decided not to seek a seat on the Human Rights Council, asserting the body had lost its credibility with repeated attacks on Israel and a failure to confront other rights abusers. Spokesman Sean McCormack said the council has had a “singular focus” on Israel, while countries such as Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea have been spared scrutiny. He said that though the United States will have only an observer role, it will continue to shine a spotlight on human rights issues. The most senior Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, supported the administration decision. “Rather than standing as a strong defender of fundamental human rights, the Human Rights Council has faltered as a weak voice subject to gross political manipulation,” she said.
Upon passage of UNHRC's June 2007 institution building package, the U.S. restated its condemnation of bias in the institution's agenda. Spokesman Sean McCormack again criticised the Commission for focusing on Israel in light of many more pressing human rights issues around the world, such as Sudan or Myanmar, and went on to criticise the termination of Special Rapporteurs to Cuba and Belarus, as well as procedural irregularities that prevented member-states from voting on the issues; a similar critique was issued by the Canadian representative. On September 2007, The US Senate voted to cut off funding to the council .
The United States joined with Australia, Canada, Israel, and three other countries in opposing the UNHRC's draft resolution on working rules citing continuing misplaced focus on Israel at the expense of action against countries with poor human-rights records. The resolution passed 154-7 in a rare vote forced by Israel including the support of France, the United Kingdom, and China, although it is usually approved through consensus. United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, spoke about the "council's relentless focus during the year on a single country - Israel," contrasting that with failure "to address serious human rights violations taking place in other countries such as Zimbabwe, DPRK (North Korea), Iran, Belarus and Cuba." Khalilzad said that aside from condemnation of the crackdown of the Burmese anti-government protests, the council's past year was "very bad" and it "had failed to fulfill our hopes."
On 6 June 2008, Human Rights Tribune announced that the United States had withdrawn entirely from the UNHRC, as its mission to the UNHRC had resigned his observer status. Although the US did not hold a seat on the UNHRC, it had held observer status and been involved in the review of other nations' human rights records. As of June 7th, the US has not formally confirmed or denied this report.
Accusations of Antisemitism
As of January 24, 2008, Israel had been condemned 15 times in less than two years. The UN Human Rights Council, like its predecessor the UN Human Rights Commission, has been criticized by some Western countries for its fixation on Israel while ignoring the actions of neighboring states. This has lead to accusations of the organization being anti-semitic. By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned. Toward Sudan, another country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern."
Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied" said that the actions of Israel in the Palestinian territories to be unprecedented and found that it has produced immense suffering for Palestinians. He argues that it would not be forgivable if the Human Rights Council overlooked charges of Israeli violation of international humanitarian law. He notes that the HRC has appointed special rapporteurs for other situations, including the DPRK and Myanmar. Falk says that his experience suggests that the Council gives complete freedom to its special rapporteurs to report on a situation and expects adherence to principles of impartiality. Other observers take the view that the Human Rights Council's has an obligation to condemn Israel's violations of international law in keeping with the basic mission of the Council, which is to safeguard human rights.
The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of possible human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council’s special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organization of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.
At its Second Special Session in August 2006, the Council announced the establishment of a High-Level Commission of Inquiry charged with probing allegations that Israel systematically targeted and killed Lebanese civilians during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The resolution was passed by a vote of 27 in favour to 11 against, with 8 abstentions. Before and after the vote several member states and NGOs objected that by targeting the resolution solely at Israel and failing to address Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians, the Council risked damaging its credibility. The members of the Commission of Inquiry, as announced on 1 September 2006, are Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, Mohamed Chande Othman of Tanzania, and Stelios Perrakis of Greece. The Commission noted that its report on the conflict would be incomplete without fully investigating both sides, but that "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel," as the Council had explicitly prohibited it from investigating the actions of Hezbollah.
On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.
Annan reiterated this position in his formal address on 8 December 2006 (International Human Rights Day). Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."
On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world." The European Union, Canada and the United States were also critical of the Council's focus on Israeli violations.
A Council meeting in Geneva in 2007 caused controversy after Cuba and Belarus, both accused of abuses, were removed from a list of nine special mandates. The list, which included North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan, had been carried forward from the defunct Commission.
The Council's charter preserves the watchdog's right to appoint special investigators for countries whose human rights records are of particular concern, something many developing states have long opposed. Commenting on Cuba and Belarus, the UN statement said that Ban noted "that not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." The United States said a day before the UN statement that the Council deal raised serious questions about whether the new body could be unbiased. Alejandro Wolff, deputy US permanent representative at the United Nations, accused the council of "a pathological obsession with Israel" and also denounced its action on Cuba and Belarus. "I think the record is starting to speak for itself," he told journalists.
The UNHRC President Doru Costea responded: "I agree with him. The functioning of the Council must be constantly improved." He added that the Council must examine the behaviour of all parties involved in complex disputes and not place just one state under the magnifying glass..
Speaking at the IDC's Herzliya Conference in Israel in January 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council actions against Israel. "At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas's terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva," Verhagen said.
January 2008 decree
The Council released a statement calling on Israel to stop its military operations in the Gaza Strip and to open the Strip's borders to allow the entry of food, fuel and medicine. The Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 30 to 1. 15 states abstained.
"Unfortunately, neither this resolution nor the current session addressed the role of both parties. It was regretful that the current draft resolution did not condemn the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians," said Canada's representative Terry Cormier, the lone voter against.
The United States and Israel boycotted the session. US ambassador Warren Tichenor said the Council's unbalanced approach had "squandered its credibility" by failing to address continued rocket attacks against Israel. "Today's actions do nothing to help the Palestinian people, in whose name the supporters of this session claim to act," he said in a statement. "Supporters of a Palestinian state must avoid the kind of inflammatory rhetoric and actions that this session represents, which only stoke tensions and erode the chances for peace," he added. "We believe that this council should deplore the fact that innocent civilians on both sides are suffering," Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said on behalf of the seven EU states on the council.
At a press conference in Geneva on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded when asked about its special session on Gaza, that "I appreciate that the council is looking in depth into this particular situation. And it is rightly doing so. I would also appreciate it if the council will be looking with the same level of attention and urgency at all other matters around the world. There are still many areas where human rights are abused and not properly protected," he said.
Resolutions on defamation of religions
In 1999, Pakistan brought before the CHR a resolution entitled 'Defamation of Islam'. The purpose of the resolution was to have the Commission condemn what the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) said was a worldwide campaign to defame Islam.
Some members of the CHR put forward amendments that called for the protection of all religions. Consequently, the Commission adopted a resolution entitled 'Defamation of Religions'. The resolution expressed "deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions" and concern with the way the communications-media "incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and any other religion." Each year between 1999 and 2006, the CHR approved similar resolutions about protecting religions in general and about protecting Islam in particular.
In 2005, the CHR, through the ministration of Yemen, introduced a resolution entitled 'Combating Defamation of Religions' to the General Assembly. The resolution stressed "the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums." The resolution urged states "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance." 101 states voted in favour of the resolution.
In 2006 and thereafter, the UNHRC approved similar resolutions.
In August 2007, the Special Rapporteur to the UNHRC, Doudou Diène, reported to the General Assembly "on the manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights." The Special Rapporteur recommended that the member states promote dialogue between cultures, civilizations, and religions taking into consideration:
The need to provide equal treatment to the combat of all forms of defamation of religions, thus avoiding hierarchization of forms of discrimination, even though their intensity may vary according to history, geography and culture;
The historical and cultural depth of all forms of defamation of religions, and therefore the need to complement legal strategies with an intellectual and ethical strategy relating to the processes, mechanisms and representations which constitute those manifestations over time;
The fundamental link between the spiritual, historical and cultural singularity of each form of defamation of religions and the universality of their underlying causes;
The creation of conditions facilitating the encounter, dialogue and joint action of all religions and spiritual traditions for social harmony, peace, human rights, development and combat against all forms of racism, discrimination and xenophobia;
The need to pay particular attention and vigilance to maintain a careful balance between secularism and the respect of freedom of religion. A growing anti-religious culture and rhetoric is a central source of defamation of all religions and discrimination against their believers and practitioners. In this context governments should pay a particular attention to guaranteeing and protecting the places of worship and culture of all religions.
On 27 March 2008, the UNHRC requested that the High Commissioner for Human Rights compile a report on "relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions." The High Commissioner presented the report on 5 September 2008.
On 28 March 2008, the UNHRC asked its Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to bring to the Council's attention all instances of racism and blasphemy. In the words of the resolution, the Rapporteur was to “report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination ....”
At a meeting of the UNHRC on 16 June 2008, David G. Littman, representing the Association of World Education, in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced some practices of Sharia. In particular, Littman said the stoning of women for adultery and the marriage of pre-teen girls were abuses of human rights. The representatives of Islamic countries objected to Littman's remarks. The Egyptian delegate, Amr Roshdy Hassan, said “... Islam will not be crucified in this Council.” The President of the Council, Doru Romulus Costea, said the Council "is not prepared to discuss ... religious matters in depth. Consequently we should not do it." The President ruled, "Declarations must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion. … I promise that next time a speaker judges a religion or a religious law or document, I will interrupt him and pass on to the next speaker." Later, the President said only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith.
On 19 September 2008, Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, addressed the Council. He delivered the report prepared by Doudou Diène. The report called on member states to shift the present discussion in international fora from the idea of "defamation of religions" to the legal concept: "incitement to national, racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence," which was grounded on international legal instruments.
As of February 25, 2009, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference is actively lobbying the United Nations to make the anti-blasphemy resolution 62/154 binding on member nations, a move which has drawn sharp criticism from such free-speech advocates as Christopher Hitchens.
For more detail about the resolutions of the United Nations on the defamation of religion, see Blasphemy.
Bloc voting
Human rights groups say the council is being controlled by some Middle East and African nations, supported by China, Russia and Cuba, which protect each other from criticism. This drew criticism from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon at the ineffectiveness of the council, saying it had fallen short of its obligations. He urged countries to 'drop rhetoric' and rise above "partisan posturing and regional divides" and get on with defending people around the world. This follows criticism since the council was set up, where Israel has been condemned on most occasions and other incidences in the world such as Darfur, Tibet, North Korea and Zimbabwe have not been discussed at the council. Ban Ki-Moon also appealed for the United States to fully join the council and play a more active role.
Universal Periodic Review
A key component of the Council consists in a periodic review of all 192 UN member states, called Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The new mechanism will be based on reports coming from different sources, one of them being based on contributions from NGOs. Each country's situation will be examined during a three-hour debate.
- First session (7–18 April 2008): Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, South Africa, Bahrain, Indonesia, India, Philippines, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Finland, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic.
- Second session (5–16 May 2008): Gabon, Ghana, Peru, Guatemala, Benin, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Pakistan, Zambia, Japan, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, France, Tonga, Romania, and Mali.
- Third session (1–12 December 2008): Botswana, Bahamas, Burundi, Luxembourg, Barbados, Montenegro, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Turkmenistan, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, Uzbekistan, and Tuvalu.
- The remainder of the first 192 reviews will take until 2011.
See also
External links
- - official website
- A NGO based in Geneva monitoring the work of the Human Rights Council
-
- - links to all the top documents, both official and NGO
-
-
- from accredited media at UN
Includes voting results
- , Human Rights Watch, 6 October 2006
- ,
- ,
- ," Ronan Farrow, Wall Street Journal, 29 January 2008
- .
|
| |
|
|
