« On abuses of counter-terrorism measures, on the responsibility of multinationals, as well as on the right to reparation for victims, we have made significant progress. But the silences of the Commission with regard to the human rights situation in Chechnya, Iran or in China leave a bitter taste, as if the voices of human rights defenders in these countries were stifled once again », deplores Sidiki Kaba, President of the FIDH, referring to the absence of initiative of the Commission on these three situations.
Some successes
In view of notable and important advances in thematic resolutions and in the adoption of a few country resolutions, FIDH wishes to highlight some of the successes of this 61st session:
FIDH welcomes the establishment of a new mandate for the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, at the initiative of Mexico, outcome of a long campaign carried out with the main international human rights NGOs. Despite attempts to reduce the proposed mandate, the Rapporteur should be able to directly address governments concerned by liberticide measures or violating human rights in the context of countering terrorism.
The appointment of a Special Representative to the Secretary General on « Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises », should also allow for the strengthening of the responsibility of enterprises with regard to human rights.
FIDH also welcomes the adoption of the long-awaited basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. FIDH equally appreciates the Argentinian and Swiss initiatives respectively on the right to the truth and on transitional justice. These three initiatives contribute to the development of international human rights law reinforcing the rights of victims.
FIDH is also pleased with the adoption of the resolution on the death penalty by an increasing number of co-sponsors (80 against 76 in 2004).
FIDH embraces the maintenance of resolutions under agenda item 9 condemning the human rights situations in Belarus, the Democratic Popular Republic of Korea, Cuba and Myanmar.
FIDH takes note of the adoption of resolutions on technical cooperation between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the following countries: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Haiti, Liberia, Nepal, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, and Somalia. FIDH welcomes the establishment of a mechanism of protection on Sudan, but it questions the examination of this issue in the context of technical cooperation while authorities themselves are charged before the International Criminal Court by the Security Council, and not in consideration of systematic and grave violations of human rights. This question can be raised for other cases herein mentioned.
Flagrant violations of the obligations of States to protect victims
Disappointment and deception prevail concerning the lack of echo given to priority concerns raised by human rights defenders:
Europe’s refusal to present a resolution on the situation of human rights in Chechnya after the clear and strong condemnation of Russia by the European Court of Human Rights, the murder of the Chechen leader Maskhadov and the significant reduction of freedom of expression, is a real slap in the face for human rights organisations, especially while they face more and more difficulties to operate in the field.(See also the latest report)
The absence of an initiative on China is equally disconcerting. More than fifteen years after the events in Tienanmen Square, the repression of all dissident voices continues. Defenders are prevented from operating in the field. Torture, arbitrary detention and capital punishment cases keep staggering dimensions.
Concerning Iran, a resolution was all the more justified following the noticeable deterioration with, inter alia, the intensification of the repression of cybernauts and Bahai’ minorities. Similarly on Iraq, the extremely preoccupying situation would have justified a public qualification by the Commission and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism.
FIDH equally regrets that no resolution condemned the degrading situation in Togo and in the Ivory Coast, despite strong condemnations from regional African bodies or the Security Council.
FIDH deplores the rejection of the resolution on the situation in Guantanamo Bay while the United States of America has still not authorised the visit of UN Special Rapporteurs following their terms of reference.
The development of worrying offensives
Several negative trends have been confirmed this year, as displayed in worrying offensives, aiming at directly limiting the mandate of protection of the Commission. Amongst these:
An attack on the mechanisms of protection: FIDH is particularly concerned by the adoption of a decision initiated by the Asian Group aiming, in reality, at the weakening of the special procedures of the Commission. Some of the worst offenders have won their battle: to challenge the working methods of these mechanisms, the last guarantees of independence of this body.
An attack against the right to defend universal rights: FIDH is preoccupied by the adoption of a resolution, initiated by China and Cuba on human rights and human responsibilities, whose sole objective is to limit the rights of individuals to defend human rights as recognised in the 1998 Declaration on human rights defenders. This initiative directly puts into question the very foundations of international human rights law, the principles of universality and indivisibility.
FIDH is equally concerned by the open attacks led by the United States of America against any reference to the International Criminal Court and against economic, social and cultural rights. Twelve years after the Vienna Conference that reaffirmed the indivisibility of human rights, the USA’s resistance weighs against their advancement and implementation.
Finally FIDH regrets that some of the most important mandates of the Commission were not given due attention in the plenary meetings. Thus no debate followed the presentation of the report of the Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders of the Experts for the protection of human rights in the fight against terrorism, on the subject of impunity or on Haiti. FIDH regrets the hazardous restriction of the Commission’s working agenda, victim of the filibustering led by some States aiming at diluting the substance of the debates, as well as unfavorable adjustments arbitrated by the Commission’s bureau.
A perilous reform: the need for safeguard clauses
In such context, the Secretary General’s proposals for reform of the Commission constitute a genuine step towards the strengthening of the institution. However, as the new process for reform needs to be endorsed by UN member States, FIDH has serious concerns. The necessary attempts to give more credibility to the Commission must not give way to further limit its protection capacities. A number of States have unfortunately confirmed their intention to cease an opportunity to develop their anti-protection attacks.
While « reforms » are always legitimate in order to remedy to the alarming drift of a political organ such as the United Nations Commission of Human Rights, FIDH wishes to recall that beyond the institutional question lies the lack of political will from CHR member States to fulfil its mandate. Therefore an institutional reform will be credible only if effective means are provided to restrict State attempts to neutralise the system of protection of human rights.
Consequently, FIDH believes three safeguard clauses must base any reform:
1.Basing the composition of the organ on an equitable geographical allocation of seats
2.Subjecting candidacy to the organ to clear, measurable and sanctionable pledges. FIDH proposes that the United Nations sets the obligations for a Member State to the Council to issue a standing invitation to the special mechanisms of protection of human rights. The effectiveness of the invitation would be evaluated by the OHCHR and the mandate holders themselves. Failure to cooperate by one State could automatically be sanctioned, after a probation period of twelve months, by its exclusion from the Council.
3.Confirming the protection mandate of the organ, via the strengthening of the special procedures -at the heart of the protection mandate-, and of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.