ISHR

On 2 November 2012, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Mr Ben Emmerson, presented his second report (A/67/396) to the General Assembly’s Third Committee.[1]

The Special Rapporteur's statement focused on the need for the Security Council to align its Al Qaida sanctions regime with international human rights law norms, most notably minimum standards of due process. In particular, he recommended amending the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsperson,[2] which investigates removal requests regarding individuals and entities from the sanctions list. Though the Ombudsman role was created in 2009 to enhance due process protections, it continues to have many weaknesses. These include that States are under no obligation to disclose information to the Ombudsperson, and that the Ombudsperson has had significant difficulty in obtaining sensitive information. In addition, adverse judicial rulings, in particular by the European Court of Human Rights, have undercut the perceived legitimacy of the sanctions regime and its ability to enforce its decisions.

In the Special Rapporteur's view, the Council should, under Chapter VII powers, establish an independent adjudicator with jurisdiction to review and overturn a designation by the Committee.  Such a regime would be different from the former one as it would require the Security Council to abide by the recommendations of the Ombudsperson.

Eight countries contributed to the dialogue, which centered on the effectiveness of the sanctions regime since its inception in 1999.

Mexico and Pakistan inquired whether some of the recommendations could be applied to other sanction cases and regimes. The Special Rapportuer noted that he had focused on the Al-Qaida regime as it had been  the target of sustained legal challenges. 

The European Union (EU), Liechtenstein, the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) all praised the improvements in the sanctions regime since 1998. However, they questioned the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that current due process procedures fall short of international human rights law. In their view,  the Ombudsperson process is robust, and operates with respect to the fundamental aspects of due process.

Iran raised the issue of targeted killings, and asked if the Special Rapporteur would take the topic up in future studies.  The Special Rapportuer said his next report to the Human Rights Council would review the minimum international standards related to the accountability of public officials who had collaborated with a torture-rendering State.  He also mentioned that he had begun a study on the use of drones, which he would present to the General Assembly in 2013.

On 2 November 2012, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Mr Pablo de Greiff, presented his first report to the General Assembly’s Third Committee.[1]

In his statement, the Special Rapporteur laid out the foundations of his mandate and called on States to translate into practice their commitments to the idea that redressing past violations is vital for the rule of law.

The Special Rapporteur commended the creation of his mandate by the Human Rights Council. He also praised Member States for having recently adopted a Declaration which expresses the international community’s strong commitment to the rule of law that goes beyond a purely beyond legal formalism - which has proven greatly ineffective - and includes protection of human rights. He referred to apartheid South Africa and Pinochet's Chile to highlight that a formal understanding of the rule of law does not offer guarantees against gross human rights violations, and in some cases can be used to strengthen abusive power.

The Special Rapporteur also elaborated on how the promotion of transitional justice measures can contribute to the rule of law through the implementation of the four pillars of the mandate: truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence.  He underscored how certain measures, such as truth commissions, criminal prosecutions, reparations for victims and institutional reform can enhance the rule of law at the domestic level. However he also regretted that some governments remain reluctant to adopt these measures, or try to  trade off one measure against another.

Five countries participated in the dialogue. All the participants expressed appreciation for the victim-centred approach endorsed by the Special Rapporteur. Several States, including Switzerland, were interested in the next steps of the Special Rapporteur, and how he intended to reinforce links among the four pillars.  Chile, Morocco, and Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the gender-dimension of his work, and Norway inquired about marginalized minorities.

In his responses, the Special Rapporteur expressed concern about how few transitional measures had served women and marginalized communities, In regards to moving forward, he planned to hold a  series of consultations at the regional level to explore how countries had redressed massive violations.  He would also carry out country visits, and in due course, provide advisory and technical services.

Lastly, he reiterated the importance of appropriate redress. The fundamental challenge for the effective strengthening of the rule of law, he stated, is that transitional justice must integrate the four pillars, and that it must be designed and operated with acknowledgement of the past.

(Joint press release)

(New York) An international coalition of organizations dedicated to human rights celebrated the historic vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, on November 20, to pass resolution A/C.3/67/L.36 condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  The vote reversed the events of 2010 when the same body voted to strip the resolution of reference to “sexual orientation.” The UNGA also expanded upon its commitment to the universality of human rights by including “gender identity” for the first time in the resolution’s history. 

The resolution, which is introduced biennially in the Third Committee, urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling upon states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. It was introduced by the Government of Sweden and co-sponsored by 34 states from around the world.

For the past 12 years, this resolution has urged States "to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including... all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation."  Apart from Human Rights Council resolution 17/19 it is the only UN resolution to make specific reference to sexual orientation.  This year, the term “gender identity” was added to the list of categories vulnerable to extrajudicial killings.

At Tuesday’s session, the United Arab Emirates, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, presented an amendment that would have stripped the resolution of reference to “sexual orientation and gender identity” and substituted “or for any other reason.”  The UAE proposal was rejected in a vote with 44 votes in favor, 86 against, and 31 abstentions and 32 absent.  Another failed effort, led by the Holy See, would have stripped all specific references to groups at high risk for execution; however it was never formally introduced. 

The Third Committee also retained language expressing “deep concern” over the continuing instances of arbitrary killing resulting from the use of capital punishment in a manner that violates international law, which some States led by Singapore attempted to have deleted. The Singapore proposal was rejected in a vote with 50 votes in favor, 78 against, and 37 abstentions and 30 absent. 

The full resolution passed with 108 votes in favor, 1 against, 65 abstentions, and 19 absent.

Many governments, including Brazil, the United States and South Africa, among others, spoke out to condemn the proposed amendment to remove reference to sexual orientation and gender identity.  The Government of Japan ended the silence that has often characterized the Asian Group’s participation on LGBT rights at the UNGA by stating, “We cannot tolerate any killings of persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Our delegation voted against the proposed amendment to this paragraph because we think it is meaningful to mention such killings from the perspective of protecting the rights of LGBT people.”  

Some governments condemned the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, including Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Trinidad and Tobago stated that specific reference to “gender identity” presented a “particular challenge” for the country.  Speaking frequently, the Government of Egypt stated that it was “gravely alarmed at the attempt to legitimate undetermined concepts like gender identity” by equating them with other forms of discrimination such as that based on race, color, sex, religion, and language.  In reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, Egypt stated, “We are alarmed at the attempts to make new rights or new standards.” 

The vote affirms the resolution’s dramatic conclusion in 2010. At that time, the Third Committee removed the reference to “sexual orientation” by a vote of 79 in favor, 70 opposed, with 17 abstaining and 26 not voting and was silent on “gender identity.” However, in a remarkable turn of events, the resolution was later introduced before the full General Assembly, which voted to reinstate the language by passing it 93 to 55, with 27 abstentions and 17 absent or not voting.

The states’ decision on Tuesday to support the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and introduce “gender identity” into the resolution is one more in a series of positive developments the UN and in regional human rights systems where there is increasingly recognition of the need for protection from discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. The successful expansion of the resolution to include “gender identity” on Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day dedicated to those murdered as a result of their gender identity or expression, was particularly significant.

THE VOTE

• For a full vote on the Singapore Amendment click here.  For a photograph of the vote click here.
• For a full vote on the United Arab Emirates Amendment to remove sexual orientation and gender identity click here.  For a photograph of the vote click here.
• For a full vote on the passage of the Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions Resolutions click here.  For a photograph of the vote click here.

Joint news release by:

Action Canada for Population and Development, Canada

Anjaree Thailand, Thailand

Amnesty International

Arc International

COC Nederland, Netherlands

FARUG, Uganda

For-SOGI, Thailand

GAYa NUSANTARA, Indonesia

GATE: Global Action for Trans* Equality

Human Rights Watch

International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia (IDAHO)

International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)

International Commission of Jurists

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

Kaos Gay Lesbian Cultural Research and Solidarity Association, Turkey

The Norwegian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Organisation (LLH), Norway

Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad (OTD), Chile

RFSL The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights, Sweden

Russian LGBT Network, Russia

SAYONI, Singapore

SPECTRUM, Uganda

SPoD, Social Policies, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association, Turkey

TLF Share, Philippines

Transgender Europe (TGEU)

Women for Women's Human Rights (WWHR), Turkey

On 14 November 2012, the President of the Human Rights Council (the President), Ambassador Laura Dupuy Lasserre, presented her report to the General Assembly’s Third Committee in New York.

In her statement, the President summarized some of the key developments in the Council in 2012, including the ongoing consideration of the human rights situation in Syria; the creation of new mandates on Eritrea and on Belarus, and on the effects of Israeli settlements on human rights; the adoption of resolutions on 17 countries; and the organization of 16 panel discussions, including  on freedom of expression on the Internet, and on access to justice for  indigenous peoples.

The President stressed the importance of civil society contributions to the Council, which were indispensable to its work and credibility. However, she was disappointed at continued reprisals against those cooperating with the UN system. She underscored that it was essential for human rights defenders to carry out their work in a safe and open environment, and in particular, she referenced paragraph 30 of HRC Resolution 16/21. In this provision, the Council strongly rejects acts of intimidation and reprisals, and urges States to prevent and ensure adequate protection against them. She also highlighted the strong stance of Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on the issue during his September address at the Council, and in a high-level panel on reprisals.

The President highlighted several other Council resolutions, including one recommending the General Assembly to allow participation of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) at the General Assembly.  She also welcomed the constructive discussion in June on the line between freedom of expression and incitement to hatred and violence, which was an important follow-up to Council resolution 16/18 (2011).  That resolution, among other things, emphasizes the interdependence and mutually reinforcing bond of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

She also appealed to States to keep up the momentum of the first Universal Periodic Review (UPR) cycle, noting that the second cycle, already underway, will be crucial in dealing with follow up on human rights in a non-confrontational and depoliticized manner.

One of the major challenges facing the Council is the lack of resources for the numerous activities it undertakes. In particular, the President noted that the conference services required more resources, including for translation of UPR documents into all languages .  She also requested that resources from the regular UN budget cover webcast coverage of Council and UPR meetings, as the webcasts are the only official archive of those meetings.

In the interactive dialogue, most States praised the Council's progress, though a few pointed out some issues that required further attention.  Mexico said there was room for improvement in how the Council addressed national situations, while Liechtenstein regretted that the Council had not taken sufficient action regarding the human rights situation in Bahrain. Liechtenstein also questioned the usefulness of the “traditional values” debates.  China and Cuba expressed concern about the Council's lack of attention to economic, social and cultural rights. Russia, Syria, Bangladesh, Cuba and China accused  the Council of selectivity and double standards, practices which could lead to the discrediting of the Council, as happened with the Commission on Human Rights, its predecessor. China also disagreed with the General Assembly practice of taking up the Council’s report before the Third Committee considers it. As the premier human rights body, China believed the Third Committee should review it first.

Mexico, Turkey, Switzerland and South Africa agreed that the Council needed more resources, though Mexico urged the Council and Third Committee to look closely at their division of labour and avoid duplication of efforts. Turkey highlighted the need for more transparency around voluntary contributions to the Office, and for easily accessible information on sources and funding allocation to the Office.  Switzerland urged States to maintain their voluntary contributions, while increasing their portion of the regular budget for the High Commissioner.

The United States (US) , Switzerland, European Union (EU), and Japan asked for advice about how best to ensure the implementation of recommendations during the UPR’s second cycle. Apparently referring to Israel decision to suspend  relations with the Council, Liechtenstein expressed concern about the threat to the universality of the UPR.

In closing, the President again invited States to consider providing additional resources to the Council and for OHCHR. Funding was very much needed, including for technical cooperation, local offices and general support for fieldwork.

On November 29, the anniversary of the General Assembly resolution on the partition of Palestine and the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution granting Palestine the status of “non-member observer state”. In 2011, the Palestinian's bid for recognition as a full member of the United Nations stalled when it was unable to garner sufficient support in the Security Council, and faced the threat of a veto from the United States.[1] However, unlike the bid for full membership, recognition as an observer state only required a simple majority of the 193 Member States of the General Assembly.[2]

The resolution was approved with 138 states voting in favour, 9 against and 41 abstentions. Five States did not vote.[3] The United States, Canada, the Czech Republic, Palau, Nauru, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Panama and Israel voted against the resolution (see full vote record here). European Union (EU) countries were almost evenly split between voting for and abstaining, with only the Czech Republic voting against. This was a significant change from the EU votes last year on Palestine’s membership in UNESCO, showing a marked increase in support.[4] The majority of African, Asian and Latin American and Caribbean States voted in favour of the resolution.[5]

Sudan introduced the draft text. In addition to Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian Authority, and Ron Prosor, the Ambassador of Israel to the UN, 40 States spoke at the adoption of the resolution.[6] Israel expressed that the resolution will not confer statehood on the Palestinian Authority, will not enable it to join international treaties, organizations, or conferences, and cannot serve as terms of reference for peace negotiations because it says nothing about Israel’s security needs.

Mr Abbas did not make any specific reference to other international bodies or treaties that Palestine would aim to join, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). Many States have expressed concern in recent days that such action by Palestine would jeopardize the peace process. However, human rights groups are urging States that have been pressing Palestine to forgo membership in the ICC to end such pressure and support universal ratification of the ICC treaty.

Of the nine States that voted against the resolution, only Canada, the USA and the Czech Republic spoke. All shared the view that the resolution undermined the prospects for a two-state solution and that peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations. Of the 41 countries that abstained, many expressed concern that the resolution would have an adverse impact on negotiations. In addition, many States that voted in favor of the resolution affirmed that this was not a formal recognition of Palestine as a State.[7] Presumably referring to the potential for Palestine to pursue action against Israel at the ICC, many expressed concern that ‘unilateral actions’ are counter-productive and threaten the viability of the two state solution. Others, including the UK, Japan and Italy, referred more overtly to the ICC issue, with the UK stating that it abstained for lack of assurances that Palestine would forego such actions.

A group of leading international human rights organisations, including the International Service for Human Rights and Amnesty International, have called on the UN to ensure that non-government organisations are not excluded from key UN meetings.

The call was made in response to a resolution proposing that an NGO could be excluded from a high-level international meeting on immigration and development if any state objected to the participation of that NGO on any grounds whatsoever.

“Non-government and civil society organisations have a critical role to play at the UN, ensuring that the voices of people on the ground are heard and understood. This is particularly the case on issues such as migration, poverty alleviation and development, where NGOs are the experts,” said Madeleine Sinclair of the International Service for Human Rights.

The proposal to exclude any NGO on the basis of any objection by any state reflects a concerning trend to restrict NGO access at the UN.

“Unfortunately the 'no-objection' procedure has become prevalent in a range of meetings at UN headquarters in recent years,” said Ms Sinclair.

“The ‘no-objection’ procedure is severely flawed. Its arbitrary and ad-hoc nature not only risks excluding relevant and valuable voices, but can also lead to censorship and politically motivated exclusion of critical voices,” she said.

“Despite rhetoric supporting the vital role that civil society plays within the UN, the procedure flouts basic principles of accountability, transparency and due process.”

The International Service for Human Rights deeply regrets that, despite the NGO letter, the resolution providing for the exclusion of NGOs was passed by the UN General Assembly. “ISHR calls on all states to reflect on the valuable role of NGOs in promoting and protecting human rights and to ensure that civil society organisations can meaningfully participate in and contribute to UN General Assembly processes.”

Background

In December 2012, fifteen NGOs, including ISHR, issued a joint letter on NGO participation in the draft Migration and Development resolution of the General Assembly.

In the final hours of the 66^th session of the General Assembly on 17 September 2012, Member States adopted a consensus resolution extending the intergovernmental process of the General Assembly on strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system (66/295).

The intergovernmental process began with General Assembly resolution 66/254 on 23 February 2012. That Russian-led resolution and the intergovernmental process it created were marred with controversy and 66 States abstained from the vote. Click here for an earlier ISHR news story on the adoption of that resolution.

Part of the controversy stemmed from the fact that the intergovernmental process began as the OHCHR-initiated ‘Dublin process’ on treaty body strengthening was still ongoing. The Dublin process involved a series of multi-stakeholder consultations since late 2009 and was to culminate in a report by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights in early 2012. The report, which was to provide a basis for decisions by all stakeholders on which proposals to implement and how, was delayed to allow for further consultations with States.[1] In the meantime, the intergovernmental process was launched, leaving its relationship with the Dublin process and the High Commissioner’s report unclear. Ultimately the High Commissioner’s report was released at the end of June, following which the co-facilitators of the intergovernmental process (Iceland and Indonesia) held consultations with States on 2 July and again from 16-18 July 2012.

The July 2012 consultations

While States continued to argue about the relevance of the High Commissioner’s report,[2] the co-facilitators of the intergovernmental process essentially used it as the basis for drawing up a list of issues for discussion during the State consultations. The discussions amongst States covered four broad areas: the proposal for a comprehensive reporting calendar;[3] methods of work; the reporting process; and capacity to implement.

Several states supported the idea of a comprehensive reporting calendar in principle but voiced concerns that the proposed cycle of reporting would be unsustainable and very costly. A number of states also supported the High Commissioner’s suggestions to increase the visibility and accessibility of the treaty bodies through webcasting and videoconferencing.[4] Several NGOs, including ISHR, voiced their concerns with the suggestion in the High Commissioner’s report that formal sessions between treaty bodies and NGOs be public, as this would heighten the risk of reprisals against those cooperating with the treaty bodies. In that regard, many NGOs and States[5] welcomed the focus on reprisals in the High Commissioner’s report, in particular the suggestion to establish treaty body focal points on reprisals as a first step.

Several hard-lined States also put forward negative proposals. A group of States calling themselves “the cross-regional group” or “CRG”[6] presented a unified front in the consultations. Among other things, the CRG called for a code of conduct and accountability mechanism for treaty body experts, equitable geographical representation in the treaty bodies, and increased transparency of interaction between the treaty bodies and non-state stakeholders. Though States supportive of the independence and strengthening of the system were vocal in their opposition to such measures as a code of conduct, they were in general less coordinated in their response.

NGO participation

Another troubling aspect of the intergovernmental process from the start was the inadequate provision for the participation of key non-state stakeholders, in stark contrast to the broad consultations facilitated by OHCHR in the context of the Dublin process. Resolution 66/254 requested the President of the General Assembly (PGA) to work out “separate informal arrangements, after consultation with Member States” that would allow treaty bodies, NHRIs and “relevant” non-governmental organizations to provide input and expertise, “bearing in mind the intergovernmental nature of the process”. Several states who abstained from resolution 66/254 continued throughout the consultations to call for greater participation of other stakeholders.[7]

In the end, two NGO representatives were invited by the co-facilitators to participate in panels during the State consultations in mid-July[8] and NGOs were able to observe the discussions amongst States and take the floor during side events. Separate NGO consultations were also held on 4 September 2012. NGOs without ECOSOC accreditation[9] were subjected to a procedure whereby States could object anonymously to their participation without providing a reason or any recourse to the concerned NGO.[10] This was particularly controversial as language limiting participation to ECOSOC accredited NGOs was negotiated out of resolution 66/254 and NGO engagement with the treaty bodies has never been limited in such a way.[11] Alkarama, an NGO that regularly contributes to the work of the treaty bodies, was prohibited from participating because of an objection from Algeria. During the NGO consultations, USA, Canada, Switzerland, Israel and the EU challenged the ‘non-objection’ procedure, stating that there was no agreement on its use, while China, Russia and Algeria argued that the rule is well established for non-accredited NGOs in General Assembly proceedings.

Statements at the adoption of the resolution extending the intergovernmental process indicated that States were still divided on NGO participation. Russia on behalf of the CRG called for strict compliance with resolution 66/254 and the intergovernmental nature of the process while the USA stated that NGOs must continue to be included in all aspects of the discussion.

The way forward

The co-facilitators concluded their work in the 66^th session with a non-substantive progress report to the PGA that describes the State and NGO consultations. In that report, the co-facilitators’ recommend that a comprehensive cost review of the treaty system be provided by the end of 2012.

Regarding the timeline, States were divided in the negotiations about whether the resolution should prescribe a fixed end to the process within the 67^th session[12] or should not be constrained.[13] Reflecting the different State positions, the resolution rather vaguely “decides to extend the intergovernmental process … with a view to identifying” concrete and sustainable measures in the next session.

As the General Assembly is now gearing up for its intense Committee work during the autumn, the intergovernmental process has been put on hold until early 2013. In the meantime, the Third Committee of the General Assembly will be confronted by requests from several treaty bodies for temporary additional funding to deal with their backlogs. Language to the effect that the continuation of the intergovernmental process would not prejudice such temporary measures was negotiated out of the resolution, leaving the prospects for those requests uncertain.

(New York -17 July 2013) In a move contributing to the shrinking space for civil society at the international level, three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were barred from participating in an important civil society hearing that was organised as part of the lead up to a United Nations (UN) high-level conference on migration and development. The three NGOs, the Center for International Migration and Integration,[1] Microfy,[2] and the Institute for Human Rights and Business Limited,[3] were excluded from the meeting as a result of one or more member States objecting to their participation.

(New York - 18 July 2013) The President of the General Assembly, Mr. Vuk Jeremić, should use his office to help protect the right of independent civil society to engage openly and without restrictions in United Nations (UN) spaces, a group of leading international and regional human rights organizations, including the International Service for Human Rights, said today.

In a letter to Mr. Jeremić, the International Service for Human Rights and additional signees, address a number of key issues regarding civil society participation in the UN that Mr Jeremić needs to confront during his remaining term in office.

In particular, the group of NGOs recognize the instrumental role that the President of the General Assembly can play in ensuring that the selection of civil society is carried out in a way that is in keeping with UN values and the principle of procedural fairness. In this regard, Mr. Jeremić is encouraged to show leadership by facilitating a more open and transparent accreditation process for civil society in high-level conferences and meetings of the General Assembly.

Michelle Evans,  [email protected] is ISHR's New York Manager and Advocacy Coordinator, contact her on +1 212.490.2199