Economic and Social Council
2004 Substantive Session
48th & 49th Meetings (AM & PM)
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ADOPTS MORE THAN 50 TEXTS
ON BROAD RANGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
While adopting 51 texts, 19 of them by a recorded vote, the Economic and Social Council, on the penultimate day of its 2004 substantive session, rejected two texts, one on the protection of human rights in the context of international military operations launched to combat terrorism, and one on overturning a decision by the Commission on Human Rights regarding a pre-draft declaration on human social responsibilities.
By the draft resolution on protection of human rights in the context of international military operations launched to combat terrorism, rejected by a recorded vote of 11 in favour to 24 against, with 17 abstentions, the Council would have demanded that States and other actors in international military operations to combat terrorism prevent extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture and other grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. (For details of the vote, see Annex XVI.)
Calling for the rejection, the representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, said the issue of protection of human rights while countering terrorism was dealt with in Commission for Human Rights resolution 2004/87. It was vital not to undermine or pre-empt that resolution by adopting a competing initiative that was “limited in its scope [and] legally imprecise in the application of international human rights law and international humanitarian law”. The issues of torture and arbitrary detention were dealt with in other Human Rights Commission resolutions, as well.
The representative of Cuba, sponsor of the text, said from the point of view of ethics, morality or international law, the text could not be challenged. It was a question of defending values and principles. Those voting against the initiative would be those who normally voted in favour of resolutions condemning developing countries. The votes on the text would be remembered throughout history, as world public opinion was unanimous in demanding that human rights should not be forgotten in the future.
Another text, rejected by a vote of 24 in favour to 25 against, with 5 abstentions (Armenia, Burundi, Mauritius, Senegal, United Republic of Tanzania), sought to overturn Commission on Human Rights decision 2004/117 which contained a pre-draft declaration on human social responsibilities. (Annex XVII)
The representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, said the pre-draft declaration, which had not been mandated by the Commission on Human Rights, aimed to make human rights conditional. “The idea that a State can determine which rights an individual can enjoy in return for the exercise of responsibilities is entirely inconsistent with fundamental concepts of human rights”, he said. “It is the conditional linkage between responsibilities and human rights that we cannot allow to go unchallenged.”
The representative of Syria emphasized the importance of ensuring that all mechanisms of protecting human rights worked. The draft decision sought to cancel a decision taken by the Commission on Human Rights, in an attempt to undermine the work of the Commission and prejudice its credibility. Such a matter led one to see duplicity in the dealing of some with human rights. Efforts that threatened to undermine the United Nations must be resisted, she said.
Of the texts adopted today, 40 decisions had been proposed by the Commission on Human Rights in its sixtieth session report. Many of them concerned appointment or mandate extension of Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in, among other countries, the Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia, or on issues such as freedom of religion or belief and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, victims of trafficking in persons, human rights and the genome.
One of the decisions related to the “Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine”, which was adopted in a recorded vote of 34 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Italy, United Kingdom, United States), with 12 abstentions. By that decision, the Council approved the request to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 to investigate Israel’s violation of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. (Annex IV)
Although the Council adopted the recommended five draft decisions in the report on the third session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, several delegates expressed their dissatisfaction with the report.
Australia’s representative said the report had not fully covered what the Council had mandated, as it had not commented on the effectiveness of the United Nations’ indigenous mechanism or whether duplication existed. He expressed concern about the fact that the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, faced with increasing disquiet amongst States regarding its relevance, was now actively trying to differentiate its mandate, in order to set itself apart from other mechanisms to ensure its own continuation. Thus, further scrutiny of the Working Group’s mandate was required.
The representatives of Indonesia, Ethiopia and Colombia took issue with the fact that the report had singled their countries out for having violated the human rights of indigenous people. The representative of Indonesia, after noting that the report had mentioned West Papua as an independent country, said it was a shame that the Forum had been manipulated by certain quarters for their separatist political ambitions. The Forum must treat any unconfirmed allegations or reports in a more responsible manner. Ethiopia’s representative said, “Political motivation, rather than concern for the rights of indigenous people, seem to have dominated the Forum’s deliberations.”
Other texts requiring recorded vote concerned: strengthening the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 52-0-2 (Annex I); mercenaries, 34-17—3 (Annex II); right to development, 51-3-0 (Annex III); dumping of toxic waste, 35-17-2 (Annex V); right to food, 52-1-1 (Annex VI); standards of health, 53-1-0 (Annex VII); realizing rights in Universal Declaration and International Covenant, 49-1-4 (Annex VIII); restitution, 52-1-0 (Annex IX); extra-judicial execution, 45-0-9 (Annex X); working group on indigenous populations, 35-2-17 (Annex XI); staff of the Human Rights Commissioner, 32-18-3 (Annex XII); globalization, 49-1-1 (Annex XIII); bioethics, 52-1-0 (Annex XIV); extra meetings for Human Rights Commission, 53-1-0 (Annex XV); pre-sessional for Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 42-6-5 (Annex XVIII); and a workshop for the same body, 41-9-3 (Annex XIX).
Anne Willem Bijleveld, Director of the Division of Communication and Information, on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reported on the Office’s activities.
In other business, the representative of Qatar, on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, introduced a draft resolution on “Implementation of and follow-up to major United Nations conferences and summits: review and coordination of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010”.
The representatives of China, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Russian Federation, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Japan, India, United States, Canada, Senegal, Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), Japan, Cuba, Russian Federation,, Chile, Venezuela, Syria, Benin, Zimbabwe, Switzerland and Qatar (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China) also spoke.
The Economic and Social Council will meet at 10 a.m. Friday, to conclude its 2004 substantive session, addressing all outstanding questions.
Background
The 2004 substantive session of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) met today to continue its general segment, addressing social and human rights questions and considering action on related draft texts. It had before it the report on the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights (15 March-24 April) (documents E/2004/23, Part I and corrigenda), which contained some 48 draft decisions recommended to the Council for adoption.
By decision 1, “Strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)”, the Council would endorse the recommendation that it, along with the General Assembly, provide the High Commissioner’s Office with ways and means commensurate to its increasing tasks, as well as more resources for special rapporteurs.
By decision 2, the “Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”, ECOSOC would approve the request to the OHCHR to convene a third meeting of experts on traditional and new forms of mercenary activities, with the objectives of giving further consideration to the proposed new legal definition of a mercenary, making proposals on possible means of regulation and international supervision of the activities of private companies offering military assistance, and studying and evaluating recent activities of mercenaries in Africa.
By decision 3, “The right to development”, the Council would approve the extension of the mandate of the Working Group on the Right to Development for one year.
By decision 4, the “Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine”, the Council would approve the request to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 to investigate Israel’s violation of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
By decision 5, ECOSOC would approve a decision to appoint a special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
By decision 6, the Council would approve the decision to appoint a special rapporteur, from within existing resources, on the situation of human rights in Belarus.
By decision 7, on the “Adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights”, the Council would endorse the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years.
By decision 8, ECOSOC would approve the request to the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to submit a report to the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session and to report to the Human Rights Commission at its sixty-first session on the implementation of resolution 2004/19.
By decision 9, “Human rights and extreme poverty”, the Council would approve the extension of the mandate of the independent expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, for two years.
By decision 10, the Council would approve the decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education for three years.
By decision 11, on “The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”, ECOSOC would approve the request for the Special Rapporteur to submit a report annually to the Commission and an interim report to the General Assembly.
By decision 12, on the “Question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights”, ECOSOC would approve the renewal of the mandate of the open-ended Working Group of the Commission for two years, with a view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
By decision 13, on “The right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, ECOSOC would approve the holding of a third consultative meeting for all interested Member States, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in consultative status with the Council with a view to finalizing the “Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law”.
By decision 14, on “Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance”, the Council would approve the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for three years.
By decision 15, the Council would endorse the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for three years.
By decision 16, ECOSOC would approve the extension of the mandate of the Working Group on Enforced of Involuntary Disappearances for three years. It would also approve the request to the inter-sessional open-ended working group to elaborate a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance to meet for a period of 15 working days in two formal sessions before the Commission’s sixty-first session.
By decision 17, ECOSOC would endorse the extension for three years of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
By decision 18, the Council would endorse the request to the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants to submit a report on her activities to the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session and to the Commission at its sixty-first session.
By decision 19, on “Internally displaced persons”, ECOSOC would endorse the request that the Secretary-General establish a mechanism to address the complex problem of internal displacement.
By decision 20, on the “Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples”, ECOSOC would endorse the authorization for the Working Group to meet for five working days prior to the fifty-sixth session of the Subcommission.
By decision 21, on the “Working group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994”, ECOSOC would authorize the working group to meet for a period of 10 working days prior to the sixty-first session of the Commission.
By decision 22, on the “Situation of human rights in Myanmar”, the Council would endorse a decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for one year.
By decision 23, on “Human rights and indigenous issues”, ECOSOC would approve the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms on indigenous people for a further three years.
By decision 24, on “Follow-up to the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education”, the Council would endorse recommendation that ECOSOC recommend to the General Assembly that it proclaim a world programme for human rights education at its fifty-ninth session.
By decision 25, on “Impunity”, ECOSOC would approve the decision to appoint an independent expert for a period of one year to update the Set of Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity.
By decision 26, “Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s invitation to the General Assembly to give due consideration to the Commission’s resolution 2004/73 and to the report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). It would also endorse the Commission’s request to the JIU to assist the Commission in monitoring the implementation of resolution 2004/73.
By decision 27, “Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s decision to extend, for a further year, the mandate of the independent expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Somalia.
By decision 28, the Council would endorse the Commission’s decision to appoint an independent expert to consider the situation of human rights in Burundi and ensure that the authorities are honouring commitments made.
By decision 29, “Technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, the Council would approve the decision of the Commission to appoint an independent expert to provide assistance to the Government in the field of human rights, to study the evolving situation of human rights there, and to verify that its obligations in that field are being fulfilled.
By decision 30, “Technical cooperation and advisory services in Chad”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s decision to appoint an independent expert for an initial period of one year to facilitate cooperation between the Government and the OHCHR.
By decision 31, “Assistance to Sierra Leone in the field of human rights”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s request to the OHCHR to report to the Assembly at its fifty-ninth session and to the Commission at its sixty-first session on assistance to Sierra Leone in the field of human rights.
By decision 32, “Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s decision to designate, for one year, an independent expert to assist the OHCHR on ways and means of strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
By decision 33, “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s request to the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance with all the necessary human and financial assistance to carry out his mandate efficiently.
By decision 34, entitled “Decision relating to Paraguay under the procedure established in accordance with ECOSOC resolution 1503 (XLVIII)”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s recommendation that the documentation examined by the Commission between 1978 and 1990 on the matter should no longer be considered confidential.
By decision 35, “Corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s decision to appoint Christy Mbonu as special rapporteur, with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the matter.
By decision 36, “Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s request that the reports of the Special Rapporteurs of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on the matter be published in the official languages of the United Nations.
By decision 37, “Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s decision to appoint, for a period of three years, a special rapporteur with a mandate to focus on the human rights aspects of victims of trafficking in persons.
By decision 38, “Traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s decision to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on that issue for a further three years.
By decision 39, “Publishing the report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens”, the Council would decide that the updated and consolidated report should be published in all official languages of the United Nations and be given the widest possible distribution.
By decision 40, the Council would endorse the recommendation that a voluntary fund on minority-related activities be established to facilitate the participation in the Working Group on Minorities –- of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights -– of minority representatives and experts from developing countries. The Council would also recommend to the General Assembly that it give favourable consideration to the establishment of such a fund.
By decision 41, “International year and decade for the world’s minorities”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s recommendation that an international year for the world’s minorities be proclaimed, to be followed by a decade, with a view to advancing the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.
By decision 42, “Responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights”, the Council would, among other things, request the OHCHR to compile a report on the scope and legal status of existing initiatives and standards regarding the matter. The Council would also affirm that document E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 had not been requested by the Commission and, as a draft proposal, had no legal standing, and that the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights should not perform any monitoring function in that regard.
By decision 43, “Human rights and bioethics”, the Council would approve the Commission’s decision to appoint Iulia-Antoanella Motoc as special rapporteur to undertake a study on human rights and the human genome.
By decision 44, “The universal implementation of international human rights treaties”, the Council would approve the Commission’s decision to appoint Emmanuel Decaux as special rapporteur to conduct a detailed study of the matter.
By decision 45, the Council would endorse the Commission’s decision that its first meeting would be held on the third Monday in January with the sole purpose of electing its officers, and that the Commission’s sixty-first session would be held from 14 March to 22 April 2005.
By decision 46, the Council would authorize six fully serviced additional meetings, including summary records, for the Commission’s sixty-first session.
By decision 47, the Council would endorse the Commission’s request to appoint an independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan for a period of one year.
By decision 48, “Technical cooperation in the field of human rights in Afghanistan”, the Council would endorse the Commission’s request to the Secretary-General to extend the mandate of the independent expert on the human rights situation in Afghanistan for a further year.
The Council also had a text on the programme budget implications of decisions in the Commission’s report (document E/2004/L.34), stating, among other things, that, concerning decision 46, no provisions have been included under the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005, and that it would not be possible to absorb the additional conference-servicing requirements. Thus, those requirements would need to be met through additional appropriations by the General Assembly.
The report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document E/2004/89), submitted by Acting High Commissioner Bertrand G. Ramcharan, provides information on human rights activities of the United Nations system in economic and social areas, which are likely to be of particular interest to the Economic and Social Council.
The first section reports on the initiatives being taken by the United Nations system with regard to assisting Member States in building their national systems of promotion and protection of human rights. The second section reports on the activities of United Nations bodies and programmes and specialized agencies in the area of human rights, with a particular focus on the economic and social fields.
The report concludes that there appears to have been an overall increase in human rights-supported programming by United Nations bodies, programmes and specialized agencies since 1999. However, it would be too simplistic to conclude that human rights have been integrated throughout the system; each organization seems to have used a different approach.
Integrating human rights throughout the United Nations system requires the support of the Council. The Council may wish to facilitate that process by reaffirming that human rights law provides an important framework for the technical cooperation work of the Organization. The Council may also wish to periodically review the progress achieved in integrating human rights as an essential part of the work of United Nations bodies and programmes.
The Council also had for its consideration the report of the thirtieth to thirty-fifth sessions of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (document A/59/41), which contains, among other things, conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee at those sessions.
The report notes that, as at 30 January 2004, the closing date of the thirty-fifth session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, there were 192 States parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. By that date, the Committee had received 180 initial reports by States parties under article 44 of the Convention, 80 second periodic reports and 11 third periodic ones, amounting to atotal of 271 reports received. Some 226 reports had been examined by the Committee (171 initial and 55 second periodic). During the same period, the Committee received and examined one initial report under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict.
The Council also had a report on the thirtieth and thirty-first sessions of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (5-23 May 2003, 10-18 November 2003) (document E/2004/22). It includes, among other things, decisions adopted during those sessions, and, in its Annex, the Committee’s recommendations on reform of the treaty body system of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the Secretary-General’s proposals. The report notes that, as of 28 November 2003, 148 States had ratified or acceded to the Covenant.
A report of the JIU entitled “Management review of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”, transmitted in a note of the Secretary General (documents A/59/65-E/2004/48 and Add.1), contains several recommendations, among them a call on the new High Commissioner to reconsider the request to create a post of Chief of Staff and to review the grading of the chiefs of branch. A number of recommendations also addressed personnel issues. Noting that the imbalance in the geographical distribution of the staff of the Office is an issue that can only be solved through a determined management action, the JIU recommended that the High Commissioner prepare an action plan aimed at reducing the current imbalance.
The JIU also recommended that field operations conducted exclusively by the OHCHR should be limited to a minimum and to those cases where it has been proven that no alternative exists. The implementation of field operations should be channelled through operational partners, whenever possible.
An addendum to the report contains the comments of the Secretary-General on the recommendations. Despite having a different view of certain data and factual depictions of office policies, the Office of the High Commissioner, for the most part, welcomes the report and will engage in consultations with the Office of Human Resources Management in determining the best course of action in implementing the recommendations.
Also for its consideration, the Council had before it a draft resolution entitled “Question of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of international military operations launched to combat terrorism” (document E/2004/L.17, Rev.1), sponsored by Cuba. By its terms, the Council would demand that States and other actors in international military operations to combat terrorism prevent extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture and other grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and take effective action to combat and eliminate violations of that kind.
By a further provision, the Council would condemn all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalize or authorize such actions under any circumstances. The Council would request the Commission on Human Rights to examine the issue as a matter of priority at its sixty-first session.
Another draft decision, entitled “Commission on Human Rights decision 2004/117 on human rights and human responsibilities” (document E/2004/L.21), would have the Council decide to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights not to proceed with the actions requested by decision 2004/117 of 21 April of the Commission on Human Rights, expressing concern over the content of the pre-draft declaration on human social responsibilities, which “runs counter to the fundamental principles” of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Vienna Declaration on Human Rights.
The draft is sponsored by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, CzechRepublic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States.
A note by the Secretary-General (document E/2004/87) transmits General Comment Nos. 29 [72], 30 [75] and 31 [80] on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the Human Rights Committee during its recent sessions.
On the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Council had before it the report of the third session of the Forum (10-21 May) (document E/2004/43), also containing a number of draft decisions for adoption by the Council.
By draft decision 1, the Council would authorize, on an exceptional basis, a three-day inter-sessional meeting of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2005 to prepare for the fourth annual session of the Forum, in cooperation with the Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Issues. By draft decision 2, the Council would authorize a technical three-day workshop on free, prior and informed consent. By draft decisions 3 and 4, the Council would decide that the fourth session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will be held at Headquarters from 9 to 20 May 2005, and approve that session’s provisional agenda and documentation. The Council would also consider holding the fifth and sixth sessions of the Forum in Geneva or another part of the world.
A draft amendment to draft decision 1 (document E/2004/L.41) would replace the word “intersessional” by the word “pre-sessional”, and “in cooperation with” by the words “with the support of”. That amendment is sponsored by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
By draft decision 5, the Council would recommend to the General Assembly that it declare a second international decade of the world’s indigenous peoples after the conclusion of the current International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples in 2004.
On the same issue, the Council had a report of the Secretary-General entitled “Information concerning indigenous issues requested by the Economic and Social Council” (document E/2004/85), containing a summary of replies received from governments, NGOs and indigenous peoples’ organizations, as well as from the United Nations system. The report suggests that the Council should play a lead role in ensuring greater coherence and improved coordination and effectiveness in the various mechanisms concerning indigenous issues.
The Council also had the report of the Secretary-General on the preliminary review by the Coordinator of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People on the activities of the United Nations system in relation to the Decade(document E/2004/82). It presents a preliminary review of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, together with the information received from the United Nations agencies and funds, other international organizations and the Secretariat, and provides a summary of activities undertaken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations system during the period from 1995 to 2004.
The report notes that, despite the important institutional developments that have taken place in the framework of the Decade, indigenous peoples in many countries continue to be among the poorest and most marginalized. It also notes that the adoption of a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, one of the main objectives of the Decade, has not been achieved. Further efforts are needed by the MemberStates concerned and the international community to ensure that all indigenous peoples everywhere enjoy full human rights and enjoy real and measurable improvements in their living conditions.
The Council also had a statement submitted by the Indigenous Peoples’ Centre for Documentation, Research and Information, an NGO in consultative status with the Council (document E/2004/NGO/20).
On genetic privacy and non-discrimination, the Council had before it a report of the Secretary-General entitled “Information and comments received from Governments and relevant international organizations and functional commissions pursuant to Economic and Social Council resolution 2001/39” (document E/2004/56).
The Council also had before it letters from the Permanent Representatives of Ghana and Romania requesting membership in the Executive Committee of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for their respective countries (documents E/2004/49 and 76).
Also today, the Council was expected to take action on a draft resolution entitled “Role of the Economic and Social Council in the integrated and coordinated implementation of the outcomes of and follow-up to major United nations conferences and summits” (document E/2004/L.24/Rev.1), submitted by Qatar on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China. By the text, the Council would decide to take the necessary steps for the effective implementation of Assembly resolutions 50/227, 52/12 B, and 57/270 B, which are relevant to the Council’s work. It would further decide to revise the title of agenda item 8 to read “Implementation of General Assembly resolutions 50/227, 52/12 B and 57/270 B for consideration by the Council at its 2005 substantive session.
Action was expected on draft decision E/2004/L.36 entitled “Extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”, by which the Council would decide to renew that mandate for a further three years.
The Council would also take action on recommendations contained in document E/2004/15/Add.2 entitled “Regional cooperation in the economic, social and related fields”.
By a text entitled “San Juan resolution on productive development in open economies”, approved by the thirtieth session of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the Council would call upon the ECLAC secretariat to pursue its examination of the development strategies in countries of the region in the context of globalization. It would request the Executive Secretariat of the ECLAC to undertake a more in-depth analysis of, among other things, education, science and technology, counter-cyclical macroeconomic management, and trade integration and development.
By a draft resolution on “Support for the United nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti”, the Council, while welcoming the commitments undertaken by the countries of the region in connections with the efforts towards the reconstruction of Haiti, would instruct the Executive Secretary of ECLAC to evaluate, in coordination with the transitional Government of Haiti, the Secretary-General and the Mission, the timing and modalities of such collaboration.
By a draft resolution on “Implementation of resolutions concerning the participation of associate member countries of ECLAC in the follow-up to United Nations world conferences and in the work of the ECOSOC”, the Council would decide to establish the necessary mechanisms for the participation of associate members of the regional commissions in the work of the Council and its subsidiary bodies.
By another draft text, the Council would endorse the decision by ECLAC to hold its thirty-first session in Uruguay in 2006.
Action on Texts
As it opened its morning meeting, ECOSOC adopted, without a vote, a resolution on the “Role of the Economic and Social Council in the integrated and coordinated implementation of the outcomes of and follow-up to major United Nations conferences and summits” (document E/2004/L.24/Rev.1).
Subsequently, it took action on four draft resolutions recommended by ECLAC, which were contained in that body’s report (document E/2004/15/Add.2). The first, adopted without a vote, concerned the “San Juan Resolution on Productive Development in Open Economies”.
The Council then adopted, without a vote, a resolution on “Support for the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti”.
Next, it postponed consideration of the text on Implementation of Participation of ECLAC Associate Member Countries in the Follow-up to United Nations World Conferences and in the Work of the Economic and Social Council.
Then, it adopted, without a vote, a draft resolution on the “Place of the next session of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean”.
Discussion of Social and Human Rights Questions
ANNE WILLEM BIJLEVELD, Director of the Division of Communication and Information, on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said the UNHCR had joined the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) to strengthen its partnerships in the pursuit of durable solutions for refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons, reflecting its internal work on developing a “Framework for Durable Solutions.” Since joining the Development Group, the UNHCR had participated in a working group created to develop guidelines for the United Nations Resident Coordinators and United Nations Country Teams in achieving durable solutions for various target groups.
She said that the conclusions of four humanitarian financing studies, undertaken in 2003, had led Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) members to develop a joint needs assessment framework under the Consolidated Appeals Process, which was now being piloted in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UNHCR was also building a more systematic collaboration with the World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) on joint assessments and evaluations. It had contributed to developing a vision to manage increased risks to the security of humanitarian personnel, while maintaining its presence on the ground.
The UNHCR had continued to acknowledge that voluntary repatriation was the preferred durable solution, and it continued to work towards that objective, she said. There was wide recognition that conflict prevention, early warning and resolution required a multidisciplinary and regional approach, led by African countries but bolstered by expertise and multilateral support. Reintegration of returnees posed a challenge that could not be addressed by the UNHCR alone; solid partners were necessary. For some refugees, retuning home was not an immediate prospect. The UNHCR was seeking to increase the self-reliance of those groups, pending their return, while addressing the needs of the host communities. The UNHCR was also endeavouring to improve its performance in emergency preparedness and response capacity, registration data and the provision of documentation for refugees. It also sought to improve the quality and standards of protection and assistance, and enhance gender equality and participation.
SUNU MAHADI SOEMARNO (Indonesia) said he wished to draw the Council’s attention to irregularities in the working procedures of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples. A serious blunder had taken place during the process of selecting experts for the next term of membership on the Forum. West Papua had been listed as an independent country, separate from Indonesia. Not only had that brought the territorial integrity of Indonesia into question, but that had constituted a grave infringement of the United Nations Charter. Identifying West Papua as an independent country had sent the wrong signal. Instead of focusing on legitimate issues of importance to indigenous people and advising ECOSOC, the Forum had apparently served as a foundation to sustain the ambitions of separatist movements.
Additionally, he voiced opposition to the Forum’s reference to four specific countries –- including Indonesia –- which had allegedly committed atrocities and human rights violations against indigenous peoples. As a matter of principle, all 500 of Indonesia’s ethnic groups were regarded as equally indigenous. Any reference to Indonesia in the report, therefore, was irrelevant.
It was a shame that the Forum had been manipulated by certain quarters for their separatist political ambitions, he concluded. The Forum must treat any unconfirmed allegations or reports in a more responsible manner. Not only had there been a lack of constructive dialogue between his Government and the Forum, but the Forum had chosen to ignore information provided by his delegation and had simply presented accusations in its report.
ZHANG YISHAN (China) regretted that, during the sixtieth session of the Human Rights Commission, certain countries, out of domestic political needs, wilfully accused other countries in their statements and tabled draft resolutions against others under country-specific items. All countries, developed or developing, had the responsibility to further promote and protect human rights. What the Commission needed was mutual respect, complementarity, strengthened cooperation and reduced confrontation and bigotry.
He said that ensuring the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development had become an important challenge for many developing countries in the age of globalization. In terms of its agenda item arrangement and time allocation, the Commission had failed to fully reflect the importance of such rights.
The international community should firmly oppose all forms of terrorism without a double standard, he said. At the same time, in combating terrorism, it was essential to follow international law, especially the international human rights and humanitarian laws. Nobody should use anti-terrorism as an excuse to defy respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. He informed the Council that, this year, the Chinese National People’s Congress had embodied “respect for and guarantee of human rights” in the Constitution.
Mr. REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the protection of human rights was important to strengthening peace, freedom and development around the world, but that had been affected by hypocrisy and double standards. The Western Powers had insisted that human rights were violated only in the south of the planet, as the super-Powers tried to claim resources and world markets, greedily grabbing for more. The last session of the Commission on Human Rights showed scandalous episodes of political cynicism.
He said that a couple of hundred people were in concentration camps in a United States naval base in GuantanamoBay. Members of the Council would have the opportunity to support human rights in a new approach with a resolution, which filled gaps in treatment. Unfortunately, champions of human rights, the industrial powers of North, had fabricated false arguments to maintain immunity against those responsible for human rights violations. There was no reason where the United States Government could justify preoccupation in Cuba, even if they “dreamt it up”.
There was no doubt that electioneering existed around the political hostility from the United States towards Cuba, he said. The extreme right had carried out aggressive foreign policy, with some qualifying it as neo-fascist. The groups surrounding the United States White House never admitted the right of nations to exercise their sovereignty, and were waging a harsh battle against freedom and independence. He rejected the resolution of 6 May. Cubans stood by those who did not bend before difficulties, and stood by the value of principles.
LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGS (Ecuador) said great progress had been made in realizing economic, social and cultural rights, yet the equitable sustainable development of indigenous people had not yet been accomplished. Their living conditions remained of great concern to countries in which the indigenous population lived below the poverty line. Among other issues of vital importance was that of health. Indigenous women suffered from limited access to services and from environmental degradation. The international community, therefore, should work to strengthen policies that recognized health as a fundamental human right. There must be a focus on the reproductive rights of indigenous women and the provision of culturally appropriate health services.
He said that the problem of migration of indigenous women must also be addressed, including the alarming trend of trafficking within and without the borders of their countries. Indigenous women were the fundamental pillar for the development of children and for strengthening values and the community. A workshop could formulate guidelines for the solution to the problems of the migration of indigenous women. That solution would also require dialogue and coordination at the global, regional and subregional levels.
Ensuring the Permanent Forum’s capacity to carry out its mandate required strengthening its working methods, he said. The Forum must set priorities in its recommendations to determine those which were viable and of the greatest importance to indigenous peoples. There must also be greater coordination of that body’s work, including with other bodies of the United Nations system.
CONNIE TARACENA SECAIRA (Guatemala) said her country was committed to advancing human rights. Her delegation had followed closely the work of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and had taken part in three sessions it had held up to now. She recognized, moreover, the value of the work it had carried out in matters concerning indigenous children, young people and women, as well as its decision to make those the fundamental element of its activities during the years immediately ahead.
She noted that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, through its Department for Indigenous Peoples, had created a course of study for civil servants, leaders of indigenous organizations and political parties. That sought to identify, formulate, implement and evaluate multicultural public policies from the perspective of the ethnic and cultural diversity that characterized their nation and the responsibilities deriving there from. Guatemala had enacted a Law for the Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents, involving the adoption of a Public Policy on Children and Adolescence. Her country was a party to International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions 138 and 182, concerning, respectively, minimum age for employment and the prohibition against the worst forms of child labour.
Mr. VLASOV (Russian Federation) said discussion of human rights issues should bring countries closer together and lead to development in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation. It was important to take into account country and regional specificities and historical experience and inadmissible to apply double standards. Furthermore, human rights must not be used as a reason to interfere in the international affairs of States. The main responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights fell to States themselves, while international institutions -– including monitoring bodies –- carried out auxiliary roles.
The main area of work on human rights should focus on development and consolidation of an unpoliticized and cooperative framework for human rights, he added. There was also a need to develop technical and consultative assistance in human rights. On the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, he said there was a lingering problem of non-compliance with the principle of fair geographic distribution during the recruitment of staff. There must be prompt implementation of all recommendations contained in report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the review of that body’s management practice.
The growing number of special procedures of the Commission of Human Rights was also a source of concern, he said. They had led to additional financial burdens on the budget of the Commission and were not conducive to the effective management of the body’s work. Among other priorities, he discussed the need to combat racism and neo-fascism and reiterated that his country had provided comprehensive support to the United Nations work against racism. He also noted that some countries that considered themselves democratic had continued policies of discrimination against ethnic and linguistic minorities and had made no plans to redress that situation.
JAMES CHOI (Australia) said the report on indigenous issues had not fully covered what the Council had mandated, as it had not commented on the effectiveness of the United Nations’ indigenous mechanism or whether duplication existed. The report also had not deal with the issue of how the scarce resources for indigenous mechanisms could be allocated more effectively. It was clear that duplication and inefficiencies existed within the United Nations system on indigenous issues.
He said that the Working Group on Indigenous Populations had been mandated to develop standards concerning the rights of indigenous people. The Working Group had sought to create additional work for itself, however, on standard setting, in an effort to remain engaged and relevant. The Working Group’s study on indigenous peoples and treaties was completed in 1999, a full decade after it was mandated. He would like to know how that report, after so much effort, had assisted in the development of standards for indigenous peoples.
Expressing concern, he noted that the Working Group, faced with increasing disquiet amongst States regarding its relevance, was now actively trying to differentiate its mandate, in order to set itself apart from other mechanisms to ensure its own continuation. Thus, further scrutiny of the Working Group’s mandate was required. Taking note of the report should not be the end of considering that important issue, he said.
Mr. BERNAL (Colombia) voiced concern about the section of the report of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which had made reference to unverified allegations of violations of the human rights of indigenous populations in specific countries, including his. The Forum had not taken into consideration the situation of internal armed conflict in his country, but had instead implied that the Government was responsible for actions more likely attributable to internal armed groups.
In addition to rejecting the reference to his country in the report of the Permanent Forum, he asked ECOSOC to seek revision of the Forum’s methods of work. The Forum must follow the limits of its mandate and refrain from indulging in selectivity on the points included in its report. Following intense negotiations, Colombia would join the consensus on the decision before ECOSOC today, but wished to note that, while reaffirming support for the Permanent Forum, it was felt that the Forum should focus on the functions given it by its mandate. Specifically, the verification and recording of violations of human rights of indigenous people was accounted for by specific mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur on indigenous issues and the Commission on Human Rights.
The Forum’s actions in reporting on certain States in which atrocities and violations of human rights of indigenous people had allegedly occurred breached the principles of objectivity and non-selectivity, he concluded, and focused attention away from other parts of the world, where actual violations of human rights had been committed.
AZANAW TADESSE ABREHA (Ethiopia) expressed his disappointment with the report of the third session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The report had singled out his country and three others for human rights violations of indigenous people and had even urged the entire United Nations system to take appropriate action. He said his country’s Constitution clearly guaranteed the rights of every nation, nationality and people to speak, write and develop its own language, to promote is culture, and to preserve its history.
He said no nation, nationality or people in Ethiopia had ever been referred to as “indigenous people”. The Forum could not consider alleged human rights violations of indigenous people in Ethiopia, “because there are no indigenous people, per se, in Ethiopia”. He also questioned the objective behind singling out four developing countries on baseless allegations by the Forum. “Political motivation, rather than concern for the rights of indigenous people, seem to have dominated the Forum’s deliberations”, he said.
ANDREW BEGG (New Zealand) said that, unfortunately, his nation was disappointed with the lack of analysis in the report. It was a shame that only a few delegations had added statements and that the States most vocal in calling for a review had not contributed reports. The Working Group on indigenous peoples had played an important role in promoting indigenous people worldwide. However, the recent debate had become stale and his nation was not convinced that the work resulted in important improvements in the lives of indigenous people. He recognized that negotiations had been protracted. He hoped that States that blocked progress and argued for no changes in the text would reflect carefully on their statements. The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues provided a model for confidence-building.
He welcomed increased cooperation and supported strengthening of existing cooperation mechanisms. He endorsed the important role of the Special Rapportuer on indigenous issues. The issue of duplication had to be addressed. United Nations resources were thinning, and it was difficult to defend multiple forums on overlapping issues, which, in turn, placed a burden on governments and delegations.
Ms. JOHANSEN (United Kingdom) said she wished to align herself with the statements made by Australia and New Zealand on the need to review the future of the Working Group on indigenous issues, given the overlap of its mandate with that of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
YAUSHI TAKASE (Japan) welcomed the report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He also took note of the report on the review of mechanisms related to indigenous issues and said he wished to draw the Council’s attention to the conclusions included therein, which noted that the scarce resources of indigenous populations and voluntary contributions must be better used. The ECOSOC should take the lead role in ensuring greater coherence in mechanisms covering indigenous issues, in line with the conclusions contained in the Secretary-General’s report.
A. GOPINATHAN (India) said he shared concerns expressed by some of the delegations. In particular, he shared concerns of Indonesia, especially with the selection of experts to represent indigenous peoples.
He regretted that the Council had not taken review of the mechanisms to look at issues of indigenous peoples. He trusted that careful consideration would be given at the General Assembly. He underscored that the review should not look at only one aspect of those mechanisms.
Action on Recommendations from Commission on Human Rights
Regarding human rights, the Council had before it the report on the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights (15 March-24 April) (documents E/2004/23, Part I, and corrigenda), containing some 48 draft decisions recommended to the Council for adoption.
The ECOSOC adopted, by a recorded vote of 51 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Australia, United States), a decision on “Strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)”.
Next, the Council adopted, by a recorded vote of 34 in favour to 17 against, with 3 abstentions (Nicaragua, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia), a decision on “Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”.
It then adopted, by a recorded vote of 51 in favour to 3 against (Australia, Japan, United States), with no abstentions, a decision on “The right to development”.
Speaking in explanation before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country remained deeply concerned by terrorist acts and ongoing violence in the Palestinian territories. While all casualties of the violence were mourned, it must be recognized that the text did not reflect the reality of the situation on the ground. It unfairly singled out only one side to the conflict and turned a blind eye to all else.
The United States remained engaged in moving the peace process forward, consistent with United Nations resolutions, he said. United States President George Bush had reiterated his vision of two States living side by side in peace, and the Security Council had endorsed the Quartet’s Road Map to fulfil that vision. The United States would vote against the draft decision and urged all those opposed to the use of terrorism to show that position by voting against the text.
Also speaking in explanation before the vote, the representative of Canada said he had serious concerns about the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, due to the construction of the barrier and the effects of closures and curfews policies, among other policies. Moreover, activities such as settlement expansions and land appropriations were contrary to international law and harmed the peace process. Therefore, he urged all parties to comply with international law and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. It was impossible to overemphasize that dialogue, not violence, was the best means of ensuring peace. Yet, in failing to condemn all acts of terrorism, the text did not adequately reflect the situation on the ground, nor contribute to its solution. The text contained language that singled out one party to the conflict. Canada would vote against.
The ECOSOC then adopted, by a recorded vote of 34 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Italy, United Kingdom, United States), with 12 abstentions, a decision on the “Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine”.
The ECOSOC was then reminded that it had adopted two decisions on the “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” and the “Situation of human rights in Belarus” on 15 June 2004 during its resumed organizational session.
On the “Adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights”, ECOSOC adopted, by a recorded vote, 35 in favour to 17 against, with 2 abstentions (Armenia, Ukraine).
The representative of Senegal noted that his delegation had wished to abstain.
Next, on “The right to food”, ECOSOC adopted the decision, by a recorded vote, 52 in favour to 1 against (Australia), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom).
On “Human rights and extreme poverty”, ECOSOC adopted the decision without a vote.
On “The right to education”, the Council adopted the decision without a vote.
Speaking in explanation before the vote, the representative of the United States said the cooperative spirit of the main sponsor and co-sponsors in conducting negotiations on the text during the session of the Commission on Human Rights had been appreciated. Unfortunately, several problems had remained in the text, and the United States had been unable to support it. She also wished to reiterate concern about the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteur had exceeded his mandate and inappropriately focused his report. The United States would, therefore, vote against the text.
The ECOSOC then adopted, by a recorded vote of 53 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions, a decision on “The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”.
Making a general statement before the vote on behalf of the European Union, the representative of the Netherlands said the decision before the Council only requests the Commission on Human Rights to renew the mandate of this open-ended working group for the period of two years. The renewal of this mandate was important, since there was a need for a more thorough debate to consider options for the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Within the working group, the vast majority of participants stated that they wished that the debate undertaken during the first session of the working group was continued.
The ECOSOC then adopted, by a recorded vote of 49 in favour to 1 against (Australia), with 4 abstentions (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United States), a decision on the “Question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights”.
Speaking in explanation before the vote the representative of the United States noted that the text called on the Council to approve a request
