Human Rights Council Adivsory Comitte discussed the fate of pending studies
NEW YORK. August 13, 2008/3mnewswire.org/ -- The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this afternoon discussed the fate of pending studies prepared by the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Advisory Committee Experts wondered how they should proceed when submitting recommendations to the Council on this subject and discussed whether they should submit a recommendation to the Council during this session or wait until January to have more time to look into the status of each study. The Committee decided to meet in private to continue this discussion.
Observer country delegations underlined that the Sub-Commission no longer existed and that the Advisory Committee was not the Sub-Commission. So far there was no request from the Human Rights Council that the Committee follow-up on the studies pending under the Sub-Commission. However, the Council may decide to continue the pending studies. Also, the Human Rights Council had a responsibility to fill the gap in this transition period; it was up to the Council to take a relevant decision in this respect. Governments expressed interested in an up-to date list of the status of all pending studies and recommendations from the Advisory Committee for their follow-up.
Non-governmental organizations expressed concerns regarding pending studies and said that they should not remain gathering dust. The Committee should consider asking the Council to give the mandate to the Committee to continue those studies. The studies addressed important human rights issues, some even explicitly addressed issues which had otherwise not been addressed in international human rights law to date. To ignore or discard such work would be to propagate existing gaps in the protection and promotion of human rights.
Speaking this afternoon were Advisory Committee Experts Miguel Alfonso Martínez, José Antonio Bengoa Cabello, Emmanuel Decaux, Purificacion V. Quisumbing, Halima Embarek Warzazi, Vladimir Kartashkin and Chung Chinsung.
Also speaking were the delegations of India, France, Mexico, Germany, Egypt and Argentina.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Juridical Commision for the Autodevelopment of First Andean People (CAPAJ) and the International Movement Against Discrimination and Racism.
The Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 August to continue its discussion on pending studies of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and to hear the outcome of its two drafting groups on the right to food and on human rights education and training.
Discussion on Studies Prepared by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
TOMAS ALARCON, of Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples (CAPAJ), expressed concern regarding pending studies concerning indigenous peoples. There were several studies that had been prepared by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Also, there had been several Expert seminars organized between 1996 and 2006 regarding the topic. Many declarations were adopted in those seminars. Those studies could not remain gathering dust. The Committee should consider asking the Council to give the mandate to the Committee to continue those studies to ensure implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples.
GEORGINA STEVENS, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, in a joint statement with Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA); and International Dalit Solidarity Network, said that it was crucial for the Committee to address the status and follow-up of the work of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
The President of the Human Rights Council in his address to the Advisory Committee had said that the institution-building package of the Council had not addressed the review of studies carried out by the former Sub-Commission. However, General Assembly resolution 60/251, which required the Council to review, improve and rationalize all mandates of the Commission, and Human Rights Council Decision 1/102 confirmed that the Council had to also review the work of the Sub-Commission. In order for the Council to carry out this review and determine what to do with the Sub-Commission's work, it first required up-to-date information on the current status of the studies and degree of work that had been done on each. The Advisory Committee was urged to provide an updated list of the current status of the studies. Further, the status of studies varied; some were considered complete by the Sub-Commission, while others were a work in progress. The studies addressed important human rights issues, some even explicitly addressed issues which had otherwise not been addressed in international human rights law to date. To ignore or discard such work would be to propagate existing gaps in the protection and promotion of human rights. The Advisory Committee was urged to draw up a list indicating the current status of all pending issues.
MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that regarding the studies carried out by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, they had to be very clear that the Sub-Commission no longer existed and that the Advisory Committee was not the Sub-Commission. So far there was no request from the Council that the Committee follow-up on the studies. The Advisory Committee as a collegiate body could not endorse a single study that it had not even seen, as was suggested earlier. India was surprised to hear that an updated status of the studies was prepared in 2008 and hoped that this update was made available to the Member States. It had to be clear that the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs for studies had expired with the Sub-Commission.
It had to be noted that the architecture of the Advisory Committee was different from the Sub-Commission. However, the Council may decide to continue the pending studies. The Council's priorities may have undergone changes in priorities. The Advisory Committee should focus on the specific tasks that had been assigned to it.
DANIEL VOSGIEN (France) said that the Human Rights Council had a responsibility to fill the gap in this transition period; it was up to the Council to take a relevant decision in this respect. It was not simply a question of principles; it was a question of the importance that was attached to the work of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The Council needed suggestions and a solid basis of recommendations that would make it possible for its Member States to take decisions. This should include information such as the status of the studies, whether the Special Rapporteurs were still members of the Advisory Committee and if they were ready to continue the work.
ELIA DEL CARMEN SOSA NISHIZKI (Mexico) said that it was important to have a list of studies mandated under the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights stating their status. Mexico supported the proposal made by the Experts to draft a working programme. This could then be suggested to the Council. It was useful for already concluded work to be published so that the human rights system could benefit from what had been done.
MICHAEL KLEPSCH (Germany) said that Germany added its voice to those that had highlighted the necessity for the Human Rights Council to have a clear view on the heritage of the work of the Sub-Commission. They could not change everything in this transitional period and they could also not stop everything. The Advisory Committee should send to the Human Rights Council a detailed list of studies with recommendations by the Advisory Committee for follow-up.
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) said that hearing each other out would facilitate the work of the Committee to come up with recommendations on this issue. Egypt valued the studies that had been made by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, those that had been finished and those pending. What had been concluded by the studies was still of value, such as for example the outcome of the study concerning leprosy. Egypt understood that if all pending studies had to be continued it could undermine the work of the Committee. Egypt would like the process to be transparent and global. An update on the status of studies was necessary for the Council to be able to make a final and informed decision.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said that Argentina appreciated the detailed presentation by Mr. Decaux this morning on the pending work before the Advisory Committee. The need and appropriateness of the Advisory Committee establishing the work that needed to be continued was highlighted. Argentina believed that the Human Rights Council had to decide on this particular point. There was still a legal limbo; the status of the studies was not clear. The Human Rights Council had to settle this issue. The Advisory Committee had the faculty to recommend the best course of actions, and which studies should be carried on.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Advisory Committee President, said that there were two possibilities in front of the Committee. The studies under the Sub-Commission were either concluded or not. If they were concluded, nothing needed to be done, except if a follow-up was asked for. But that would be a new decision and the Committee would have to turn to their higher body. If the study was not concluded, the Committee had to determine if they wanted to continue it or not. The Council would have to be asked about each study. Either way, the Council would have to take a decision. The decision was not up to the Committee, but to the Council.
3mnewswire.org
No comments:
Post a Comment