U.N. Debates on Extending the Definition of Freedom of Speech Due to a Canadian's Proposition of Globalizing the Artistic Merit Law

The Human Rights Council today concluded its third regular session, which was held from 29 November to 1 December. During the session, which started immediately following the conclusion of the second session, the Council heard an address delivered on behalf of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and heard the report of High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour. The Council also adopted six resolutions, one decision and scheduled another council because of a motion filed by Joseph Molyneaux a Canadian Diplomat, as well as its annual report to the General Assembly.

Molyneaux, filed a 36 page motion to ammend the definition of the freedom of speech. He is trying to extend the definition of the freedom of speech in order for it to encompass the rights of authors to publish pornographic works of art in literary works. He plans to globalize the controversial Artistic Merit Law of Canada which aims to uphold the protection of the author's right to publish child pornography in literature. The controversial law is put in the center of the international stage and it paived the way to a great debate among the liberals and conservatives of the United Nations. The inclusion of the Artisitic Merit Law in the definition of freedom od speech even fueled a mass walk out from conservative nation.

Interactive debates and dialogues were also held with the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General. Discussions took place on in the U.N. Convetion with the four facilitators from the Working Group on the implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, the review of mechanisms, the complaint procedure, and the Expert advice body. The Council also debated methods of work and rules of procedure for the future framework of the artistic merit law in the global context.

Due to the tension building up, Ambassador de Alba also announced a request from Finland, on behalf of 29 countries, for the Council to postpone the debates and just hold a special session immediately after the conclusion of the third session to discuss further the pros and cons of the artistic merit law in order for them to discuss more important issues.

The request was granted and the dates for the next council meeting will be released soon

COUNCIL HEARS FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ON REPORTS ON MISSIONS TO LEBANON AND ISRAEL AND OTHER ISSUES

The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard statements from non-governmental organizations on the two reports of its Special Procedures on their missions to Lebanon and Israel as well as on other issues.Commenting on a joint report by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, on their mission to Lebanon and Israel, Human Rights Watch said it fell far short of the impartial, independent and comprehensive investigation that Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for. Nord-Sud XXI said the joint report was not objective. United Nations Watch praised the report, saying it was a distinct pleasure to see such a change of method of work in the Council and to see a balanced report which considered the situation in both parties.Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru” praised the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon, saying it was objective. Both reports were presented and discussed in the morning meeting (see press release HR/HRC/06/58).Other issues raised by speakers included the rights of gays and lesbians, the right to water and the defamation of religions.Sri Lanka exercised the right to reply.Participating in the discussion on other issues were non-governmental organizations from : People's Decade of Human Rights Education, Coalition of Activists Lesbians-Australia, in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, in a joint statement with Earthjustice, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Foodfirst Information, Franciscans International, Human Rights Advocates and International Commission of Jurists, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Interfaith International, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Association for World Education in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Nord-South XXI, in a joint statement with Arab NGO Network for Development, Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council, United Nations Watch.
The Council was scheduled to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 5 October, to start the concsideration of draft resolutions and decisions. It was later decided that the following meeting would br held on Friday, 6 October, the closing day for this session.Statements by Non-Governmental Organizations on Initiatives, Issues, Decisions and ResolutionsWALTER LICHEM, of People's Decade of Human Rights Education, said that it was important to keep in mind the very important and fundamental institutional challenge of integrating, not only mainstreaming, the human rights and societal development agendas both in the broader development policies and with regard to security and peace related polices and action. There also was a need to recognize the fact that the human rights agenda had been focusing increasingly on the essential importance of human rights not only for the relation between the State and citizen but even more on the relations between human beings. KIM VANCE, of Coalition of Activists Lesbians-Australia, in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, commended the numerous Special Procedures that had presented extensive evidence of human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including, but not limited to, death, torture, rape and denial of freedom of expression. Special Procedures should continue to integrate consideration of these violations within their relevant mandates. The Human Rights Council’s success in addressing persistent human rights violations against marginalized groups would be a litmus test of the credibility and effectiveness of the reform process. NATHALIE MIVELAZ, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, in a joint statement with Earthjustice, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Foodfirst Information, Franciscans International, Human Rights Advocates and International Commission of Jurists, said that more than a billion people lacked the most basic water supply and 10,000 people died each day due to diseases causes by a lack of clear water and sanitation. The implementation of the right to water had important practical benefits. It emphasized the need to prioritise available resources on people without basic access to water and on the most vulnerable and marginalized communities. It confirmed that water was a legal entitlement, rather than a mere charity or commodity. The right to water would also empower communities to be fully consulted and to participate in decision-making processes affecting them. RAYMOND MERAT, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said that 17 workers of the French non-governmental organization ‘Action contre la Faim’ were murdered in Sri Lanka. Since all the members of the Council agreed that this type of odious crime against humanitarian organizations was the worst violation of human rights, the Association suggested that a resolution condemning these murders be voted before the end of the session and that the High Commissioner follow the legal proceedings closely. CHARLES GRAVES, of Interfaith International, said one of the so-called other issues that should be presented continually before the Council was the situation of the Baluchi people vis à vis the Pakistani Government. The complaint of the Baluch was that although they were the original inhabitants of Baluchistan, the Pakistani Government was exploiting their resources, especially gas, and their port of Gwadar, without sufficiently sharing the resources with the local Baluch population. The Pakistani Human Rights Commission had raised this issue. Giving the epithet of terrorist to the Baluch did not truly describe the situation. ROY BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, said that with reference to A/HRC/2/L.25 concerning incitement to racial and religious hatred, such a resolution should include language that deplored the use of religion to justify or incite any form of violence and hatred. The Union urged members of the Council to give due consideration to their recommendations that would significantly improve the wording of any future resolution on combating defamation of religion. DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that on two earlier occasions, the Association had raised the question of “defamation of religions”, asking the three Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion, freedom of expression and racism to request the Council to condemn all who killed or called upon others to kill, terrorize or use violence in the name of God or religion. Was there not a grave risk that silence here and now on this major issue might be construed by some as acquiescence in this defamation. If appeals on issues like the killing in the name of Allah, crimes of genocide in Darfur and the Iranian President’s repeated statement that Israel should be “wiped off the map” went unheeded, was there not a risk that the Council might out-commission the Commission?ANGELA C.WU, of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said regarding the resolution on incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance, the defamation of religions could not be explored without consideration for the fundamental rights of religious expression and free speech. Anti-conversion and anti-defamation laws had proliferated in response to the outcry of religious communities that found offence at the free expression of others. As a diverse body, the Council could appreciate the importance of critical dialogue. There could be no freedom to search for the truth where anti-defamation laws criminalized issues based on whether a person of one religion took offence at the expression of another. Right of ReplyO. AMEER AJWAD (Sri Lanka), in a right of reply, said that with reference to a non-governmental organization which raised the killing of 17 humanitarian workers in Sri Lanka, the Government had condemned the incident and Australian forensic workers were now in the country to assist the inquiry in this regard. Statements by Non-Governmental Organizations on the Two Reports on Missions to Lebanon and Israel PEGGY HICKS, of Human Rights Watch, said Human Rights Watch welcomed the report of the four Special Rapporteurs and the work of the investigators into Israeli violations during the recent conflict. However, these efforts fell far short of the impartial, independent and comprehensive investigation that Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for. The research conducted by Human Rights Watch showed that both the Israel Defence Forces and Hezbollah had committed widespread violations of the laws of war, and that those violations amounted in a number of cases to war crimes. The seriousness of the violations committed demanded an independent and comprehensive Commission of Inquiry similar to the investigations set up in the Balkans and in Darfur.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DECIDES TO DISPATCH URGENT FACT- FINDING MISSION TO THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory in which it decided to urgently dispatch the Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories to undertake a fact-finding mission on the situation.In a resolution on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, 11 against and five abstentions, the Council demanded that Israel end its military operations in the occupied Palestinian territory; expressed grave concern at the detrimental impact of the current Israeli military operation on the already deteriorating humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people; urged Israel to immediately release the arrested Palestinian ministers, and members of the Palestinian Legislative Council; and decided to dispatch an urgent fact-finding mission headed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory.A vote had also been called on an amendment by Pakistan to proposed Swiss amendments to the draft resolution. The Pakistani amendment was approved by a vote of 28 to 0, with 17 abstentions. By that amendment, the Human Rights Council urged all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat under all circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Israel, speaking as a concerned country, asked the Council to vote against the resolution, and Palestine, speaking as a concerned party, called on all delegations to vote in favour of the text.Canada said that it was its view that the new Council should deal with such a controversial matter by consensus and so it would abstain. Switzerland also abstained, as it felt that the draft resolution was not balanced. It was not that the parties to the conflict had to be treated on an equal footing, but that both parties should be reminded of their obligations, Switzerland felt. Many speakers pointed to the issue of balance in focusing on the obligations of both parties to the conflict, but there remained a sharp division among countries on whether the text was acceptable or not. Finland, speaking for the European Union, regretted that the text did not treat the parties in a more balanced manner, in particular, by calling for the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli soldier, and calling on the Palestinian leadership to cease its Qassam rocket fire on Israeli territory. Others, such as Ecuador, regretted that a more balanced text could not have been presented, but felt that situations of dire human rights violations, such as were present in the occupied Palestinian territory today, required urgent action by the Council. Still others, such as Cuba, felt that the draft resolution, as amended, presented a more balanced text, and one that was more in keeping with the language of the Geneva Conventions than in the Swiss proposal.Speaking in explanations of the vote before the vote were Finland, on behalf of the European Union, Canada, the Russian Federation, Cuba, Switzerland, the Philippines, Guatemala, China, Peru, and Ecuador. Speaking in explanations of the vote after the vote were Brazil, speaking also on behalf of Argentina and Uruguay, Japan, and Mexico.The special session, the first called for by the Human Rights Council, opened on Wednesday, 5 July in the afternoon and heard from a long list of speakers, headed by John Dugard, the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. The second regular session of the Council will be held from 18 September to 10 October 2006.Resolution on Situation in the Occupied Palestinian TerritoryIn a resolution (A/HRC/S-1/L.1/Rev.1), entitled “Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, as revised and amended, which was adopted after a vote of 29 in favour, 11 against, and 5 abstentions (Cameroon, Mexico, Nigeria, the Republic of Korea, and Switzerland), the Human Rights Council expresses grave concern at the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people caused by the Israeli occupation, including the current extensive Israeli military operations against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; demands that Israel, the occupying Power, end its military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, abide scrupulously by the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and refrain from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians; expresses grave concern at the detrimental impact of the current Israeli military operation on the already deteriorating humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people; urges Israel, the occupying Power, to immediately release the arrested Palestinian ministers, members of the Palestinian Legislative Council and other officials, as well as other arrested Palestinian civilians; urges all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat under all circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions; decides to dispatch an urgent fact-finding mission headed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; and calls for a negotiated solution to the current crisis.The result of the vote was as follows: In favour (29) Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia.Against (11): Germany, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom and Ukraine.Abstentions (5): Cameroon, Mexico, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, and Switzerland. At the beginning of the meeting, a vote was held on the sub-amendments proposed by the delegation of Pakistan. The sub-amendments were passed by the following vote:The result of the vote was as follows: In favour (28): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia.Abstentions (17): Cameroon, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom. StatementsITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said that Israel asked the Council to vote against the draft resolution presented by the Arab Group and the Islamic Group. MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned party, said that while the Council was meeting in Geneva, the Israeli tanks were shelling the civilian Palestinians. The Palestinian parliament was under siege, surrounded by Israeli military troops which wanted to abduct the speaker of the parliament. The Palestinian delegation had urged the occupying power to respect the Geneva Convention, which it had not heeded to. He urged all delegations to vote in favour of the text.VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union members had taken note of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) amendment to the Swiss amendment tabled yesterday. The European Union felt that the OIC amendment still fell short of the European Union’s requirements. For that reason EU members would abstain in the vote on it.TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it was the view of Canada that the new Council should deal with such a controversial matter by consensus. Canada would abstain in the vote. VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said the proposal from Switzerland and Pakistan would make the text of the resolution more balanced. The Russian Federation would vote in favour of the text if a vote were to take place.JORGE A. FERRER RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Cuba would be voting for the proposed amendment presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Cuba thanked many delegations, in particular those of the OIC, who had accommodated dialogue to include all the interests involved. It appeared to Cuba that the OIC amendment would allow for a more balanced text, and one that was more in keeping with the language of the Geneva Conventions than the Swiss one.BLAISE GODET (Switzerland), explaining its request for a vote to be taken on the amendments to the draft resolution, said that it seemed to Switzerland that the draft resolution was not balanced. It was not that the parties to the conflict had to be treated on an equal footing, but that both parties should be reminded of their obligations. For that reason, Switzerland felt that its proposed amendments were preferable to those presented by Pakistan. For that reason, Switzerland was asking for a vote.ENRIQUE A. MANALO (Philippines) said the delegation of the Philippines was concerned about the escalation of violence in the occupied Palestinian territory. The first effort should be to safeguard individuals on both sides. It was also essential to pursue negotiations in order to seek peaceful means to settle the conflict.CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO. (Guatemala), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Guatemala was convinced that the Council should be called on to resolve urgent human rights situations wherever they occurred. Guatemala would vote in favour of the resolution because it would like to reaffirm the appeal for calm, and to avoid any further confrontations. Guatemala called on both sides to show mutual respect; all sides should strive to find a path to negotiations, to take up the Roadmap, and to comply with their obligations.SHA ZUKANG (China) said China would vote in favour of the draft resolution. The Israelis should exercise restraint in their actions. The members of the Palestinian parliament should be released immediately. The Israeli soldier taken hostage should also be released immediately.VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union had displayed some concerns to the sponsors of the draft resolution. Regrettably, those had not been taken into account. In particular, the European Union had called for the text to treat the parties in a more balanced manner and to call immediately for the unconditional release of the Israeli soldier, and to call on the Palestinian leadership to cease its Qassam rocket fire on Israeli territory. For that reason the European Union could not support the draft resolution as orally amended and would vote against the proposed text.MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said the Government of Peru would vote in favour of the draft resolution. The Government had wanted a balanced text to be introduced; however, it would vote in favour. The respect for international humanitarian law should be invoked in all conflict situations. The international community should make further efforts to bring down the escalating violence in the region. The search for peace and harmony should be the ultimate gaol in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The implementation of the Roadmap was essential to bring both parties to the negotiating table.GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Ecuador appreciated the efforts of Switzerland and Pakistan to reach a consensus text. Regrettably, that had not been possible. Ecuador, however, would support the draft resolution, in line with its consistent commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. Situations of dire human rights violations, such as were present in the occupied Palestinian territory today, required urgent action by the Council. The General Assembly had given the Council that power. Ecuador would have liked its voice to be heard when the drafting of the resolution was under way. Substantive matters should not be sacrificed to procedural matters, however. Human lives should not be sacrificed to legal texts. BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said the draft was not without positive elements. It called for the respect of international humanitarian law. In the past, the Government of Switzerland had condemned the human rights violations in the region. Even with the amendment of Pakistan which was just adopted, Switzerland would abstain from voting on the text as a whole.TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Canada believed that the Human Rights Council should play a constructive role in the resolution of the human rights situation in the region, but the draft resolution before them did not present a balanced approach. It was not consistent with General Assembly resolution 60/251 ,which called on the Council to be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity in carrying out its mandate. The draft resolution concentrated almost exclusively on Israel. It did not call on the Palestinian Authority to refrain from rocket fire, among others. Canada would vote against the resolution as amended.SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil), speaking on behalf of Argentina and Uruguay in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay had voted in favour of the draft resolution. They were deeply concerned with the increasing deterioration of the living conditions of the Palestinian population. Their Governments deplored the sufferings imposed on the civil Palestinian population, with no access to electricity or potable water. There was a need for both parties to the conflict to abstain from the use of force and resume dialogue and negotiations in order to overcome the current crisis. The international community, with the engagement of the United Nations had to play a relevant role in the resumption of the peace negotiations. The Council could contribute to constructive and peaceful solutions by promoting human rights in the region. The Human Rights Council should not, however, systematically use the old methods of the Commission on Human Rights, such as the adoption of separate resolutions on each issue under examination. SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said the present text was one-sided and not balanced. Had more efforts been made to improve the text, Japan would have joined the consensus, however, since that was not the case, Japan had voted against it.LUIS JAVIER CAMPUZANO (Mexico), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the Government of Mexico would have preferred a more balanced text in treating the parties to the conflict. It was necessary to take up all violations, both arrests of Palestinian ministers and attacks on civilian Palestinian infrastructure, as well as the abduction of the Israeli soldier and attacks on Israeli civilians. The Council had to have the power to address urgent human rights situations, stressing dialogue and cooperation. Mexico supported a visit by the Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories to the region.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL TO FIRST SESSION OF THE COUNCIL

Following is the statement by Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, the President of the first session of the Human Rights Council, to the first meeting of the Council which opened today at the Palais des Nations in Geneva:“Almost 60 years ago, with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we started a long path towards the construction of a system to promote and protect these rights. What we have achieved so far is not minor. We find the best proof of this in the importance acquired by human rights and in response to the numerous victims of violations throughout the years. The international community knew how to develop a broad system of protection under frequently adverse conditions. Now, by creating this Council, it has the opportunity to enhance that system and, even more so, to bestow upon it a truly universal, fair and balanced character. Nowadays, Member States accept that human rights are paired with the other two main objectives of our Organization: to preserve international peace and security and to attain development. From now on, human rights are not just going to be a priority in the work of the United Nations: they will also constitute one of its three fundamental pillars, as proposed by the Secretary-General last year.It is time to show with facts how solid these commitments are and to demonstrate our unwavering resolve to incorporate all actors of our societies in this effort. As of today, we start building a new institution able to respond to the expectations of our peoples. It is a complex task that will certainly require gradual measures, inherent to any transition, but also, and foremost, it provides us with the opportunity to overcome the deficiencies that contributed to discredit the institutions that preceded this Council. We should make the achievements of the Commission our own. The seven fundamental treaties, the special mechanisms and procedures and, in general, the legal framework and all instances that monitor their compliance, are invaluable resources to ensure the universality and indivisibility of human rights and their effective respect. But we should also develop new instruments and working methods. It is essential to conceive mechanisms for both the prevention and sanction of human rights violations, working with a mid- and long-term vision, on the one hand, and responding to emergency situations in a timely fashion, on the other. It is of great importance to agree on a balanced agenda that reflects our will to address all rights in all countries, to identify gaps and to avoid unnecessary duplications to strengthen the existing mechanisms. It is also necessary to improve coordination with bodies and agencies within and outside the United Nations System, and at the same time, to foster the incorporation of a human rights perspective in all their activities. Let’s embark on the task of generating, in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation, a mechanism of universal and periodic evaluation to know the improvements and more pressing duties every State has in human rights issues. If we can achieve this, we will avoid the excessive politization and the use of double standards of which the former Commission was accused. In this task, it is also crucial that both the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights strengthen international cooperation in developing national capacities. Let’s open our doors to a full participation of key actors, such as civil society organizations and national human rights institutions. Their presence in the field is useful to all of us and we should capitalize on that. Let’s take advantage of all the technological advances to publicize our work to make it transparent. We represent peoples who are better informed every day and who wish to participate in the decision-making processes. Let’s invite the entire civil society to participate in this transforming process. We are before a crossroads of a historic nature. We can and should contribute to improve the respect of human rights all around the world, and at the same time, we can and should contribute to the reform and strengthening of the multilateral system. I therefore call upon all those who will participate in this process to bear in mind that a strong Council can only emerge from the legitimacy it will gain in effectively addressing the demands of men and women who wish a full respect of their rightsLet us give preference to dialogue over confrontation, cooperation over sterile critics, and openness over closeness.Before concluding, allow me to thank you on behalf of the Mexican Government for the opportunity to contribute to the cause of human rights from the chairmanship of this Council. Also, let me thank the Latin American and Caribbean Group for the steadfast and committed support they gave me to hold this position and to all of you for the trust placed in me to guide this important process. I wish to express my appreciation for the patient and determined work of President Jan Eliasson and of his two co-facilitators, Ambassadors Arias of Panama and Kumalo of South Africa, who made the adoption of Resolution 60/251 possible, but especially, my appreciation for their intelligence and their unwavering commitment for the best results of multilateralism. I also wish to express my appreciation for the efforts carried out by the Secretary-General of our Organization, Mr. Kofi Annan, to adapt it to the challenges we face; and the personal commitment of the High Commissioner, Louise Arbour, and her Office for the establishment of this Council.To conclude, I want to reiterate my personal commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, with the victims of human rights violations and with all of you. I am convinced of the strength of common resolve when embarking on lofty tasks and that neither a single person, nor a single State can, on their own, make a difference. By creating the Human Rights Council, we have a second chance, let's not waste it.

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL BEGINS TO TAKE SHAPE AS FIRST SESSION CONVENES IN GENEVA

The first meeting of the newly established Human Rights Council opens in Geneva on Monday, 19 June, marking a new beginning for United Nations efforts to promote and protect fundamental freedoms worldwide.This inaugural session, set to last until 30 June, will bring together high-level representatives from over 100 countries and see delegates begin concrete work to allow the Council to build on the recognized strengths of its predecessor -- the Commission on Human Rights -- and flesh out the features that make it a stronger and more effective human rights body. The meeting will take place just over a month following the open and competitive election of the Council’s 47 members by the UN General Assembly in New York.General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who oversaw the intense negotiations that resulted in the creation of the new Council last March, said: “The establishment of the Human Rights Council shows that Member States can overcome differences and deliver outcomes relevant to the people of the world. I expect the members of the Council to address the challenges before them with the same constructive spirit and commitment. We must show the world that the Council means a fresh start in the United Nations’ work for human rights.”UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who proposed the establishment of a new Human Rights Council in his report leading up to the World Summit, said: “I am confident that the Council will open a new chapter in the history of the UN’s work to promote and protect human rights, and I urge everyone to join in the effort to make that happen.”At this session and over the coming year, the Council will tackle a heavy workload, including establishing the format of the universal periodic review, the groundbreaking mechanism that will allow it to scrutinize the human rights records of all countries. The Council will also set in motion the process of reviewing all mandates and responsibilities of the previous Commission on Human Rights and defining other aspects of the Council's work, such as the system of special procedures, encompassing over 40 independent experts and groups who investigate issues relating to civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights or monitor the situation in specific countries.UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, said: “The Council is a momentous achievement, but the hard work is just beginning. The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but it also holds many opportunities. As they take up the solemn responsibility of reshaping the international human rights framework, I urge all Members to put aside narrow considerations and act in the interest of all the people whose rights they hold in trust.”
An Improved FrameworkThe resolution establishing the Human Rights Council provides the framework for a significant improvement in the work of promoting and protecting human rights worldwide: · A “universal periodic review” will ensure that all 191 Member States of the United Nations, starting with the members of the Council itself, will have their records examined in order to improve human rights conditions worldwide. All states must be held accountable for their shortcomings.· The Council will hold more meetings throughout the year and for longer total duration than the Commission. It will also have a simplified and more efficient mechanism to convene special sessions to respond promptly to human rights crises. · As the Council is elected directly by the General Assembly, the new body reflects the high level of importance given to human rights as something belonging to all people and, alongside development and security, one of the three pillars of the United Nations. · Any Council member who commits gross and systematic violations of human rights can have their rights of membership suspended by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. · The first election of members to the Council on 9 May was the first indication that the new Council was not “business as usual”. Countries competed for seats in an open and fair election and, for the first time ever, candidates put forward voluntary pledges and comments to promote and uphold human rights to which they will be held accountable. The Human Rights Council session will be webcast live from 19-22 June at www.un.org/webcastFor further information on the Human Rights Council session, including agenda, list of Council Members and other background materials, please visit: www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/ For media enquiries, please contact:Renata Sivacolundhu, Information Officer, UN Department of Public Information, tel. +41 22 917 1905 Rolando Gomez, Information Officer, UN Information Service at Geneva, tel. +41 22 917 2326 mobile: +41 79 477 0880For use of the information media; not an official recordHRC06001E

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ELECTS 47 MEMBERS OF NEW HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

NEW YORK, 9 May 2006 - The General Assembly today, in what its President called a new beginning for the promotion and protection of human rights, elected the first 47 members of the newly-created Human Rights Council.Following three rounds of secret voting, the following members were elected: Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.The new Human Rights Council, created by General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 to replace the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights, will seek to address violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and promote effective coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations system. In electing the Council's first members, the 191-member Assembly followed a procedure that significantly differed from that of the often criticized Human Rights Commission, which will be abolished on 16 June.Adopting resolution 60/251 in March by recorded vote, the Assembly called for elections of Council members on 9 May, and an inaugural meeting of the new body on 19 June in Geneva. By other terms of the resolution, the Council's 47 founding members would be individually elected by an absolute majority of 96 votes by the Assembly's members. If the Council members failed to uphold the highest human rights standards, they could be suspended by a two-thirds majority vote by Assembly members present at the meeting.Also in accordance with resolution 60/251, membership in the Council is open to all United Nations Member States. Council members will serve for a three-year period and will not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms. The Assembly further decided that the terms of membership will be staggered, and that such a decision would be taken for the first election by the drawing of lots, taking into account equitable regional distribution.In that connection, after completing today's elections, the Assembly drew lots to select, among the elected members in each regional group, those members who will serve for one, two or three years, respectively.Addressing a full Hall, Assembly President Jan Eliasson of Sweden noted that, by creating the Council as a subsidiary organ of the Assembly, Member States had further strengthened the Organization's human rights machinery and elevated the institutional standing of its human rights work. It was now time to implement that historic achievement. The Council's first members would play a crucial role, as they would take its first decisions. From the start, Member States had been guided by the letter and spirit of resolution 60/251. The fact that all candidates for election have presented pledges and commitments in accordance with the resolution was very encouraging. While a further step had been taken to make the Council operational, much work remained, he added. The elected members would now have the particular responsibility to put in place the structures and prepare the Council's first meeting on 19 June. The Council's work would be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity and international dialogue and cooperation. Also by today's election, the Assembly had, in concrete terms, implemented another mandate from the 2005 World Summit Outcome. The process would now move to Geneva.Speaking after the election, Zambia's representative, on behalf of the African Group, welcomed the historic elections, saying that "the serious work we all pledged of promoting and protecting human rights must now begin". The challenges for the elected members, as pioneers, should include the adoption of a new agenda and working methods that would reflect the importance of the realization of the right to development, as well as moral human rights issues, such as the eradication of poverty and under-development. The newly-elected members should also formulate structures to ensure a strong Council that would be transparent and non-selective, thus avoiding the pitfalls of the much criticized Commission on Human Rights. Notwithstanding that criticism, the Group expected the Council to take note of the positive elements, particularly in the field of norm development and standard-setting. Council members should also support reforms of the human rights machinery aimed at creating a stronger, efficient and less politicized organization that would respond promptly in cases of human rights abuses in any part of the world, he continued. They should demonstrate leadership in cooperating with the Council, abiding by the provision of the resolution, which called for a periodic review mechanism. The Group was convinced that the Council would not be a "case of old wine in a new bottle", but would fulfil the aspirations of the international community. The African Group pledged to do its part to fulfil the objectives of the new Council in promoting and protecting human rights and ensuring that the body advanced the founding principles espoused in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.In other business today, the Assembly took note of the fact that the Dominican Republic had made the necessary payment to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter. In an announcement on the Comprehensive Review and High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS from 31 May to 2 June, Mr. Eliasson thanked those who had expressed interest in round tables at the event, and asked remaining Member States to quickly let him know if they would like to participate in a round table, so that planning the event could proceed without further delay.The Assembly will meet again at a date to be announced.BackgroundThe General Assembly met today to elect the first 47 members of the Human Rights Council.Created by General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 to replace the highly politicized Commission on Human Rights, the new Human Rights Council will seek to address violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and promote effective coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations system.In accordance with resolution 60/251, 13 of the 47 seats on the Council would belong to the African Group, 13 seats to the Asian Group, six seats to the Eastern European Group, eight seats to the Latin American and Caribbean Group, and seven seats to the Western European and Other States Group.Also by the terms of resolution 60/251, the members of the Human Rights Council were to be elected directly and individually by secret ballot by the majority of the Assembly's members. Accordingly, for today's election, with the membership of 191 Member States, 96 votes constituted the majority in the Assembly. Also, as stated in resolution 60/251, when electing members of the Council, Member States were to take into account the contribution of the candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto.Consistent with the Assembly's practice, if more than the required number of Member States had obtained the votes of the majority of its members on the same ballot, those Member States which had obtained the largest number of votes above the required majority would be considered elected, up to the number of seats to be filled. Also consistent with past practice, in the case of a tie for a remaining seat, there would be a special restricted ballot limited to those candidates that had obtained an equal number of votes.Results of VotingThe results of the first round of voting were as follows:Drawing of LotsAs the Assembly proceeded to draw lots to determine the terms of the elected Member States from the Group of African States, it was determined that South Africa, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria would serve for one year; Ghana, Zambia, Mali and Gabon for two years; and Djibouti, Cameroon, Senegal, Mauritius and Nigeria would serve for three years.Among Asian States, Bahrain, Indonesia, Philippines and India would serve for one year; Pakistan, Japan, Sri Lanka and Republic of Korea would serve for two years; and China, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Jordan would serve for three years.Out of the Group of Eastern European States, the term of Poland and Czech Republic would be one year; Romania and Ukraine two years; and Russian Federation and Azerbaijan three years.Regarding the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, it was decided that Argentina and Ecuador would serve for one year; Peru, Brazil and Guatemala would have a two-year term; and Uruguay, Mexico and Cuba would serve for three years. Out of the Group of Western European and Other States, Finland and the Netherlands would serve for one year; United Kingdom and France would serve for two years; Switzerland, Germany and Canada would serve for three years.