Consejo DDHH ONU crea Relatoria Verdad, Justicia, Reparación y no repetición 29SEP2011

8/4/2019 Consejo DDHH ONU crea Relatoria Verdad, Justicia, Reparacin y no repeticin 29SEP2011

1/14

Human Rights Council estalishes new mandates on promoting anequitable international order and on truth, justice and reparation

29 September 2011

Also Adopts Texts on Minorities, Mercenaries, International Solidarity,

Indigenous Peoples, and Cooperation with the United Nations in Field ofHuman Rights

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted seven texts, which includedestablishing new mandates for an Independent Expert on the promotion of a

democratic and equitable international order and for a Special Rapporteur on thepromotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. The Council

also adopted texts on the commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the adoptionof the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious

and Linguistic Minorities; the use of mercenaries; human rights and internationalsolidarity; human rights and indigenous peoples; and on cooperation with the United

Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.

In a resolution regarding the promotion of a democratic and equitable international

order, the Council decided to establish, for a period of three years, a new SpecialProcedure mandate of Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and

equitable international order, with a mandate to identify possible obstacles to thepromotion and protection of a democratic and equitable international order, to identify

best practices and to work in cooperation with States in order to foster the adoption ofmeasures at the local, national, regional and international levels. The Council

requested the Independent Expert to present their first report to the Human RightsCouncil at its twenty-first session.

The Council decided to appoint for a period of three years a Special Rapporteur on thepromotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, whose tasks

would include gathering relevant information on national situations relating to thepromotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence in addressing

gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarianlaw, and to make recommendations thereon. The Council requested the Special

Rapporteur to report annually to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

In other texts, the Council decided to convene, at its nineteenth session, a panel

discussion to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Rightsof Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, with a

particular focus on its implementation as well as on achievements, best practices andchallenges in that regard.

Concerning the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding

the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Council once again urgedall States to take the necessary steps and to exercise the utmost vigilance against the

menace posed by the activities of mercenaries. It condemned mercenary activities indeveloping countries in various parts of the world, in particular in areas of conflict, and

called on all States to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and

1


2/14

their nationals were not used for the recruitment, financing, training and transit of

mercenaries.

In a resolution regarding human rights and international solidarity, the Council

affirmed that international solidarity was not limited to international assistance andcooperation and aid; it was a broader concept that included sustainability in

international relations, and it urged the international community to urgently considerconcrete measures to promote and consolidate international assistance to developing

countries in their development endeavours. The Council requested the HighCommissioner to convene in 2012 a workshop for an exchange of views on the gender

implications of international solidarity, the role of international solidarity in achieving

the Millennium Development Goals and the realization of the right to development.

Regarding a resolution on human rights and indigenous peoples, the Council welcomedthe work of the Special Rapporteur and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples, and requested the Expert Mechanism to prepare a study on therole of languages and culture in the promotion and protection of the rights and identity

of indigenous peoples, in addition to a questionnaire survey to seek the views of Stateson best practices to attain the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples. The Council decided to hold, on an annual basis a half-day panelon the rights of indigenous peoples and to hold, at its twenty-first session, a half-day

panel on access to justice by indigenous peoples.

In a resolution regarding cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and

mechanisms in the field of human rights, the Council urged States to take all necessarymeasures to prevent the occurrence of reprisals and intimidation, bearing in mind that

free and unhindered contact and cooperation with individuals and civil society wereindeed indispensable to enable the United Nations and its mechanisms to fulfil their

mandates. The Council decided to convene, at its twenty-first session, a paneldiscussion under agenda item 5 on the issue of intimidation or reprisal against

individuals and groups who cooperate or have cooperated with the United Nations, its

representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights.

All the texts that the Council took action on this morning came under its agenda itemon the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social

and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Introducing resolutions were Austria, Cuba, Poland on behalf of the European Union,

the United States, Argentina, Morocco, Guatemala and Hungary.

Speaking in general comments were Cuba, Costa Rica, Chile, Peru, Ecuador,

Guatemala, Switzerland, Russian Federation and Uruguay on behalf of the SouthernCommon Market (MERCOSUR).

Speaking in explanations of the vote before or after the vote were Poland on behalf of

the European Union and Cuba.

When the Council resumes its work at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will continue to takeaction on remaining draft resolutions and decisions.

2


3/14

Action on Resolutions Under Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All

Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Rightto Development

Action on Resolution on Panel to Commemorate Twentieth Anniversary of the Adoptionof the Declaration on the Rights of Minorities

In a resolution (A/HRC/18/L.7) regarding the Panel to commemorate the twentieth

anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging toNational or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted without a vote, the

Council decides to convene, at its nineteenth session, a panel discussion to

commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Rights of PersonsBelonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, with a particular

focus on its implementation as well as on achievements, best practices and challengesin this regard; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human

Rights to organize the panel discussion and to liaise with the Independent Expert onminority issues, States, relevant United Nations bodies and agencies as well as with

civil society, non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutionswith a view to ensuring their participation in the panel discussion; and requests the

Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a report on the outcome of the paneldiscussion in the form of a summary.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria), speaking in introduction of draft resolution L.7, said itwas honour to introduce the draft text with 64 co-sponsors from all regions. Austria

was traditionally the main sponsor of resolutions on the rights of minorities. Thissession Austria had prepared a procedural text that aimed to organize a panel

discussion at the next Human Rights Council session in order to commemorate theanniversary of the Declaration on the Rights of Minorities. This panel would kick off

further commemorative activities in this context. Within the draft was mentioned thestrong engagement of the Human Rights Council on this topic. Consultation had been

held with all delegations of the past week. Austria was confident the draft would be

adopted without a vote.

Action on Resolution on the Use of Mercenaries

In a resolution (A/HRC/18/L.11) regarding the use of mercenaries as a means of

violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, adopted by a vote of 31 in favour, 11 against and 4 abstentions, the

Council urges once again all States to take the necessary steps and to exercise theutmost vigilance against the menace posed by the activities of mercenaries, and to

take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and their nationals are notused for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training, protection and transit of

mercenaries for the planning of activities designed to impede the right to self-

determination, to overthrow the Government of any State conducting themselves incompliance with the right of peoples to self-determination; requests all States toexercise the utmost vigilance against any kind of recruitment, training, hiring or

financing of mercenaries by private companies offering international militaryconsultancy and security services, and to impose a specific ban on such companies

intervening in armed conflicts or actions to destabilize constitutional regimes; callsupon all States that have not yet become parties to the International Convention

against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries to consider taking

the necessary action to do so; condemns mercenary activities in developing countries

3


4/14

in various parts of the world, in particular in areas of conflict; requests the Working

Group to continue to monitor mercenaries and mercenary-related activities in all theirforms and manifestations; also requests the Working Group to continue to study and

identify sources and causes, emerging issues, manifestations and trends regardingmercenaries or mercenary-related activities and their impact on human rights; urges

all States to cooperate fully with the Working Group in the fulfilment of its mandate;

decides to continue its consideration of this matter under the same agenda item at itstwenty-first session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile,China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia,

Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Qatar,Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, and Uruguay.

Against (11): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland,Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, and United States of America.

Abstentions (4): Maldives, Mauritania, Mexico, and Switzerland.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba), introducing resolution L.11, said that by its

adoption the Council would reiterate the concern with the practice of recruitment anduse of mercenaries, which constituted a violation of the purposes and principles of the

United Nations Charter. It would also reiterate a call to all States to remain vigilant

regarding the phenomenon of mercenarism and to take measures to prevent andcombat such practices. The draft resolution L.11 recognized the work done by the

working group on mercenaries and the process of regulation of the activities of private

military and security companies, increasingly used by foreign occupation regimes andwars of imperial conquest. The draft took note of the first session of the

intergovernmental working group tasked with considering the possibility of drafting aninternational normative framework to regulate and supervise the activities of private

military and security companies, and the participation of the working group onmercenaries in this session; and recommended all States to contribute to the

intergovernmental group. Cuba hoped that the draft resolution would count with thesupport of delegations and that it would be approved with the broadest possible

support.

Mr. M. MARIUSZ LEWICKI (Poland), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the

vote on draft resolution L.11 on behalf of the European Union, said that as a whole theEuropean Union had engaged constructively on the issues of mercenaries. The

European Union was concerned about and fully acknowledged the risk posed bymercenaries. The Working Group on mercenaries should focus on the issue of

mercenaries. Currently it was confusing the issues of mercenaries with private militarysecurity companies. The European Union requested deletion of operative paragraphs

10 and 13 and deletion of references to private military security companies. Theactivities of private military security companies should be properly regulated. In this

context, the European Union was engaging constructively with agencies that could

deliver this. The Human Rights Council only had partial answers. The continuedconfusion of private military security companies and mercenaries was unhelpful. The

European Union regretted that none of amendments proposed were taken on board.

Poland would call for a vote and would be voting against the resolution.

4


5/14


6/14

Mr. M. MARIUSZ LEWICKI (Poland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in

explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union attached greatimportance to the concept of international solidarity. The concept as reflected in the

United Nations Charter remained relevant today. Through its development aid, theEuropean Union demonstrated its commitment to solidarity day by day; and its

objective remained the eradication of poverty and sustainable development. It was the

primary responsibility of States to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms ofits citizens. The European Union reiterated its doubts about whether internationalsolidarity could be translated into human rights standards. International solidarity did

not meet the requirements of a legal concept nor of human rights. This attemptconstituted a rhetorical move without legal content and would be detrimental to both

human rights and the principle of international solidarity. For this reason the EuropeanUnion had called for a vote on this draft resolution and would vote against it.

Action on Resolution on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable Order

In a resolution (A/HRC/18/L13) regarding the promotion of a democratic and equitable

international order, adopted with 29 in favour, 12 against and 10 abstentions, theCouncil affirms that everyone is entitled to a democratic and equitable international

order; calls upon all Member States to fulfil their commitment expressed in Durban,South Africa, during the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination,

Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to maximize the benefits of globalization throughthe strengthening and enhancement of international cooperation to increase equality of

opportunities for trade, economic growth and sustainable development, globalcommunications and increased intercultural exchange, affirms that a democratic and

equitable international order requires the realization of the following: the right of allpeoples to self-determination and to peace; the right to an international economic

order based on equal participation in the decision-making process, interdependence,mutual interest, solidarity and cooperation among all States; the promotion of a free,

just, effective and balanced international information and communications order;respect for cultural diversity and the cultural rights of all; the promotion of equitable

access to benefits from the international distribution of wealth; decides to establish, fora period of three years, a new special procedures mandate of Independent Expert on

the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, with the followingmandate:(a) to identify possible obstacles to the promotion and protection of a

democratic and equitable international order and to raise awareness on that subject; to

submit recommendations to the Human Rights Council; (b) to identify best practices;(c) to work in cooperation with States in order to foster the adoption of measures at

the local, national, regional and international levels; requests the Independent Expert

to present his or her first report to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-firstsession.

The Council first voted on L.34 and it was passed by a vote of 23 for, 12 against and10 abstentions. The results of the vote were as follows:


In favour (23): Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo,

Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Nigeria,Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, and Uganda.

6


7/14

Against (12): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland,

Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and United States of America.

Abstentions (10): Botswana, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Maldives, Mauritania,

Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay.

The Council then voted on an oral amendment by the United States. It was rejected bya vote of 12 for, 19 against and 20 abstentions. The results of the vote were as

follows:

The Council then voted on L.13, which had already been amended by L.34 which hadbeen adopted. It was adopted by a vote of 29 for, 12 against and 5 abstentions . The

results of the vote were as follows:


In favour (29): Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China,Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait,

Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, RussianFederation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, and Uruguay.

Against (12): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland,

Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and United States of America.

Abstentions (5): Chile, Costa Rica, Mauritania, Mexico, and Peru.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba) speaking in introduction of draft resolution L.13,

said that the promotion of a democratic and equitable order was of increasingimportance everyday as the international context was inequitable and unfair.

Development aid had been reduced and technology transfer was limited and there was

an increasingly fragile global economy and countries in the South which had alwaysbeen pillaged continued to suffer from protectionist policies, increases in the price offoodstuffs and hydrocarbons. The social and political consequences of social exclusion

were felt throughout the southern countries. This resolution had a great deal ofsupport from the international community and southern countries and it was only the

northern States who opposed it with their wish to dominate the world with theireconomic and military models. The developed countries continued to oppose this

resolution because they were unwilling to accept legal instruments to create anequitable, fair and democratic economic order which was a vital prerequisite so that

the rights of all people could be achieved. The Special Procedure with this resolution

would identify obstacles and promote good practices with the aim of making the worlda better place. The Cuban delegation would make an oral revision so that the financial

implications of the Special Procedure would be drawn down to the same figure as the

new Special Procedures in resolution L.22. The Cuban delegation hoped the initiativewould be adopted with the support of most members of the Council.

Mr. M. MARIUSZ LEWICKI (Poland), speaking on behalf of the European Unionintroducing draft amendment L.33, believed that any new mandate on this issue

should include the promotion of democracy at the national level. The European Unionhad therefore proposed the inclusion of reference to the concept of democracy taken

verbatim from resolutions adopted by the Commission of Human Rights. While theEuropean Union would continue to question the full content of the mandate, it tried to

7


8/14

find some minimal additions which would at least give it the potential to make a

meaningful contribution to the advancement of human rights. The amendments set outwhat the European Union considered to be essential elements of democracy, including

genuine elections, a choice between different political parties, as well as fullguarantees for the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association. Given

that the language enjoyed the overwhelming support of Member States when it was

adopted by the Commission of Human Rights, Poland hoped it would be adopted.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba) speaking in introduction of draft resolution L.34,said the developing countries would ask the Human Rights Council to vote in favour of

L.34 which included important amendments which were based on language that was

agreed upon in previous resolutions. The amendments submitted by Poland wereconceived to be killing amendments. These amendments were underpinned by bad

faith. They were directed by a former colonial power trying to impose an Anglo Saxonorder on the world. These delegations were not involved in negotiations on L.13, and

had not even made a limited contribution. Cuba urged members of the Council to vote

in favour of L.34. To reiterate all in favour of L.13 should vote for L.34.

STEPHEN TOWNLEY (United States) said the United States wished to make an

amendment, it proposed deleting paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 and encouraged theremoval of the text requiring an Independent Expert. The unclear mandate would not

contribute to the work of the Council. This Council had the unique and importantmandate of protecting all human rights and improving the rights of people from around

the world. This mandate would divert the attention and limited resources of the Counciland prevent it from achieving its objectives and the United States maintained other

concerns with this resolution. The United States supported the removal of this mandatewhich was far too expensive and recommended further consideration by the Council.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in a general comment, said that theUnited States could only support resolutions and efforts that were in their own

interests to maintain their control over the global economic order with negative

consequences for indigenous peoples. Cuba could not accept this. The United Statesproposal illustrated double standards from the United States and would only serve to

undermine the work of the Council. Cuba called on the Council to hold a vote for thisresolution. Cuba deplored the attitude of the United States delegation and called on all

Member States to support the vote. The figure in the resolution had been reduced by $

2 million so that the financial implications were $ 1.8 million which would be on thesame level as in resolution L.22.

CHRISTIAN GUILLERMET-FERNANDEZ (Costa Rica), speaking in a general comment ondraft resolution L.13, said the text had certain areas that could be strengthened. Costa

Rica believed the text was proving an unnecessary polarization in the Human RightsCouncil. The Human Rights Council should not get bogged down in procedural issues.

Costa Rica believed the creation of a mechanism required a great deal of work. Thegood practice of Switzerland, Argentina and Morocco should be followed. Costa Rica

would be abstaining on the amendments and the resolution. The institutional cultureneeded to be changed as this was not contributing to the protection of human rights.

PEDRO OYARCE (Chile), speaking in a general comment, said that the draft resolutionsubmitted by Cuba contained important elements which Chile fully shared, including

the social dimension of democracy. However, Chile indicated that the text which

addressed issues relating to democracy should also include elements concerning its

8


9/14

effective practice, such as political parties and separation of powers. What constituted

a real concern and what Chile deeply regretted was the fact that a very polarizeddynamic had been sparkled and could lead to further tension. The issue of substance

was that an extreme situation had been reached and a rationale of polarization. Chilehad decided to abstain from voting and hoped that, in future work on these key issues

of human rights, the Council would be able to work while preserving the spirit of

cooperation which was vital for its labour.

CARLOS ALBERTO CHOCANO BURGA (Peru), speaking in a general comment on draftresolution L.13, said Peru supported multilateralism. However the delegation believed

that the broad mandate did not include all the elements of democracy. Peru was going

to abstain. Peru would abstain on the amendments proposed even if it they did containelements they supported and agree with. This resolution had led to conflict that did not

serve the preservation of human rights.

ALFONSO MORALES (Ecuador), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote ondraft amendment L.34, expressed support for the draft resolution presented by Cuba

concerning the need for an economic, legal and political order which would beequitable and democratic and would ensure respect for human rights, including

economic and social rights; and a world order which would be fair and humanitarian.On this basis, Ecuador supported the draft resolution and draft amendments presented

by Cuba.

Mr. M. MARIUSZ LEWICKI (Poland), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the

vote on draft resolution L.34 on behalf of the European Union, said that L.34 was anamendment to L.33 on the newly proposed mandate to promote a democratic

international order which called for the inclusion of a discussion on democracy at anational level. The purpose of L.34, as proposed by the delegation of Cuba, was to

change in a fundamental manner the definition of democracy, which was against theidea that citizens should have a choice between a plurality of parties, which members

of the European Union held dear and therefore Poland would call for a vote on the

resolution.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking in an explanation ofthe vote before the vote, said that Guatemala shared the content of the amendments

in L.34 reflecting universal principles of democracy and human rights. Democracyshould include respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, people

should manifest freely their preferences concerning political and social systems. This inaccordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights should include regular

elections to ensure legitimacy and should be conducted on the basis of secret ballot.These amendments should not be considered in isolation, since they referred to

resolution L.13. This was why Guatemala would abstain. Guatemala expressed concernregarding the polarization of the Council.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote beforethe vote on the orally presented amendment of the United States on draft resolution

L.13, said speakers had been talking about polarization. Cuba was not responsible forthis polarization. Cuba was the first to have open discussions. Cuba was not

responsible. Cuba was defending the rights of the south. Should Cuba say yes sir tothe major colonial powers. Cuba had a right to propose the creation of this

Independent Expert. It was not even a Rapporteur. This mandate would make

9


10/14

recommendations and beef up dialogue that would put an end to the polarization of

our world. Those interested in cooperation should vote against the amendment.

Mr. M. MARIUSZ LEWICKI (Poland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an

explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.13 as orally revised byCuba and amended by L.34, said that the European Union believed it was necessary to

continue to work towards an equitable democratic order. As expressed before at theCouncil, the European Union believed that some of the elements of the draft resolution

moved far beyond the scope of the Council and were not dealt in a comprehensiveway, but rather arbitrarily and selectively. The creation of the mandate proposed would

not be conducive to the protection of human rights and therefore the European Union

had called for a vote and would vote against it.

Action on the Resolution on the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice,Reparations and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence

In a resolution (A/HRC/18/L22) regarding the Special Rapporteur on the promotion oftruth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, as orally revised by the

Argentinean delegation was adopted without a vote, the Council decides to appoint, fora period of three years, a Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice,

reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, whose tasks will include:(a) tocontribute to the technical assistance on issues pertaining to the mandate; (b) to

gather relevant information on national situations relating to the promotion of truth,justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence in addressing gross violations of

human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, and to makerecommendations thereon;(c) to promote good practices as well as to identify potential

additional elements that could improve and strengthen the promotion of truth, justice,reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence; (e) to make recommendations

concerning judicial and non-judicial measures when designing and implementingstrategies, (f) to undertake a study with relevant stakeholders on the ways to

implement the issues pertaining to the mandate; (g) to conduct country visits; (h) to

participate in relevant international conferences with the aim of promoting asystematic and coherent approach on issues pertaining to the mandate;(j) and to

integrate a gender perspective and victim-centred approach throughout the work ofthe mandate; requests the Special Rapporteur to report annually to the Human Rights

Council and the General Assembly.

ALBERTO DUMONT (Argentina) speaking in introduction of draft resolution L.22, saidthe resolution had 75 co-sponsors from all regional groupings. Argentina and

Switzerland had worked together on the resolution and Argentina had focused on theright to truth and forensic investigations and Switzerland had focused on transitional

justice. There had been positive work on the right to justice and guarantees ofreparations. Argentina was very happy to see this conclusion shared by many States.

The establishment of this United Nations mandate was particularly special forArgentina given its history and experience.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), also introducing draft resolution L.22, underlined theimportance of a thematic mandate on the promotion of truth, justice and reparation.

Morocco expressed satisfaction that the creation of this Special Procedure came at atime where the questions of transitional justice occupied a central place in the

international scene. This initiative recognized the efforts of States which had createdtransitional justice institutions and constituted a clear invitation to respect the specific

context of each situation. It also represented an opportunity to profit from the

10


11/14

technical assistance and the expertise that the mandate holder was tasked to provide.

The decision of this draft resolution came months before the adoption by referendumof a new constitution in Morocco, which had integrated all the recommendations on

equity and reconciliation and constituted a legislative guarantee for non repetition infavour of justice and reconciliation.

DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland), speaking in a general comment on draft resolutionL.22, said Switzerland agreed with Argentina about the cooperative relationships that

States had on this issue. The resolution was a major achievement of the rights ofvictims and an attempt to establish complementary strategies. It was a message for

the re-establishment of the rule of law. The motion would serve as a focal point in the

United Nations system. The role of the mandate holder would be to collect informationon best practices and lessons learned, to make recommendations made in this regard

and investigate serious violations of human rights. Switzerland hoped the new SpecialProcedure would contribute to respect for human rights and victims rights would be

respected. The text was the fruit of intense consultation. Switzerland hoped the text

would be adopted by consensus. There were 22 additional co-sponsors.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in a general comment, noted the

efforts made on the work of this resolution and indicated that Argentina had beenspearheading work in the Council and elsewhere to combat impunity and promote

reconciliation and justice. Latin America had signaled to the world what had been doneto end impunity, including to developed countries which looked at issues of reparation

only when it came to developing countries, while they imposed silence concerningviolations carried out by their own authorities. Cuba paid tribute to the co-sponsors

and thanked them for their work on this draft resolution.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation), speaking in a general comment on draft

resolution L.22, said the Russian Federation was of the view that the role of the SpecialRapporteur must be carried out first in the context of justice in transition periods and

must provide his expertise strictly at the request of States. There must be national

measures to establish truth and create guarantees of non recurrence. Russia would notblock the growing consensus, however, in future the Russian position would be based

on the activities of the Special Rapporteur.

CARLOS ALBERTO CHOCANO BURGA (Peru), speaking in a general comment on draftresolution L.22, said it supported the draft resolution as it had the conviction that the

obligations of truth, justice, reparation and non-recurrence were critical for Statesfacing violations of human rights. The establishment of truth and justice was necessary

for a unified and prosperous society and the search for the truth was needed toprovide reparations for victims. In Peru, over 22 years of conflict had profoundly

marred society. Since 2001, Peru had created a commission to understand the causesof the violence and to establish responsibilities and accept proposals for reparations to

respect the dignity of all of the families of victims. Peru discovered this was a difficultprocess as it revealed a complex reality. The establishment of a Special Rapporteur in

this area would assist States in their fight against impunity and would lead to theadvancement of democratic societies.

FEDERICO PERAZZA (Uruguay), speaking in a general comment on draft resolutionL.22 on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), welcomed the initiative.

The mandate was very important for the countries of their region which had a strong

commitment to truth and justice. An example of this was the establishment of the

11


12/14

working group at the MERCOSUR meeting. The exchange of experiences and the

commitment of countries were valuable. The creation of the mandate would be ahistorical fact.

CHRISTIAN GUILLERMET-FERNANDEZ (Costa Rica), speaking in a general comment,paid tribute to the co-sponsors for their work on this draft resolution. It was

commendable that the work done by Argentina, reaching out to find extra-regionalpartners, was an example of good practices, and the transparency with which the work

on this draft was carried out. It was important for the Council to be mindful on this asit continued with its work.

ALFONSO MORALES (Ecuador), speaking in a general comment on draft resolutionL.22, supported fully the resolution on truth, justice, reparation and non-recurrence. It

was vital for Ecuador that this resolution be adopted due to the violence in its past andit encouraged all Member States to support it.

PEDRO OYARCE (Chile), speaking in a general comment on draft resolution L.22, saidthey would like to echo what had been said by Uruguay. This was part and parcel of

their painful history and Chile wanted the Council to support this issue. Society broughttogether those affected by truth, justice and reconciliation. Societies said never again.

Chile paid tribute to Argentina and Switzerland for their work with victims.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking in a general comment,

thanked the main co-sponsors of this resolution and paid tribute to the work done byArgentina concerning justice and truth. Argentina had shown a great deal of leadership

in the Council in previous years. It was important to create a Special Procedure tosupport existing efforts of countries, including Guatemala.

Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples

In a resolution (A/HRC/18/L23) regarding human rights and indigenous peoples,adopted without a vote, the Council welcomes the report of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights on the rights of indigenous peoples; also welcomes

the work of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; welcomes thework of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; encourages States

to consider initiating and strengthening legislative and policy measures that prioritizeeducation in national development strategies affecting indigenous peoples; requests

the Expert Mechanism to prepare a study on the role of languages and culture in thepromotion and protection of the rights and identity of indigenous peoples; further

requests the Expert Mechanism to undertake a questionnaire survey to seek the viewsof States on best practices to attain the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples; welcomes the adoption of General Assembly resolution65/198, in which the Assembly decided to organize a high-level plenary meeting of the

General Assembly, to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, to beheld in 2014; requests the Secretary-General to prepare a detailed document on ways

and means of promoting participation at the United Nations of recognized indigenouspeoples representatives on issues affecting them; decides to hold on an annual basis a

half-day panel on the rights of indigenous peoples and to hold, at its twenty-first

session, a half-day panel on access to justice by indigenous peoples; welcomes therole of national human rights institutions in advancing indigenous issues; encourages

those States that have not yet ratified or acceded to the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples

12


13/14

Convention, 1989 (No. 169) of the International Labour Organization to consider doing

so.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking in introduction of draft

resolution L.23, said this document was an omnibus text. It provided an institutionalframework and the help of a voluntary contribution fund. It remedied existing gaps

related to participation. It had aspects relating to how to acknowledge differentstakeholders. It sorted out an integrated approach to the themes of indigenous peoples

issues. The draft resolution acknowledged the work done by the Special Rapporteurand welcomed the practice adopted by the Expert Mechanism devoting time to specific

thematic measure placed in front of it. A questionnaire should be sent regarding

positive strategies in order to achieve objectives in relation to rights of indigenouspeoples. The draft welcomed a mechanism to discuss the world conference on

indigenous peoples. It also discussed the ways and means and participation. It invitedthe Secretary-General and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to

prepare a detailed document on the means of promoting and working with the United

Nations on ways of the participation. This could be submitted in the twenty-firstsession. Serious consideration should be given to treaty bodies recommendations

concerning indigenous peoples. There would be a half day panel on right of indigenouspeoples. Draft L.23 was the outcome of broad consultation including all stake holders,

including the Special Rapporteur and the Expert Mechanism. The draft had 26additional co-sponsors.

ALFONSO MORALES (Ecuador), speaking in a general comment on L.23, congratulatedMexico, Guatemala and all the co-sponsors. Ecuador underscored the importance of

language and culture in the promotion of the fundamental rights of indigenous peoplesand their full integration into society on the basis of equality. This was an issue of

great importance and one that Ecuador strongly supported. Ecuador thanked againdelegations for their work on this draft resolution.

Action on Resolution on Cooperation with the United Nations in the Field of HumanRights

In a resolution (A/HRC/18/L19) regarding cooperation with the United Nations, its

representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights, the Council urges Statesto take all necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of reprisals and intimidation,

bearing in mind that free and unhindered contact and cooperation with individuals and

civil society are indeed indispensable to enable the United Nations and its mechanismsto fulfil their mandates; also urges States to investigate any alleged acts of

intimidation or reprisal, and encourages them to inform the Council of all measurestaken to address acts of intimidation or reprisal; decides to convene at its twenty-first

session a panel discussion under agenda item 5 on the issue of intimidation or reprisalagainst individuals and groups who cooperate or have cooperated with the United

Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights; requests theOffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report

on the outcome of the panel.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), introducing draft decision L.19, said that the main thrust

of the draft decision was to provide the Council with an occasion under agenda time 5to address instances of intimidation of reprisals against individuals who cooperated

with the United Nations in the field of human rights. Hungary believed that free contactand cooperation with individuals and societies was important for the Council to fulfill its

mandate. While Hungary would have preferred to allocate a section of the general

13


14/14

debate to this issue, in the spirit of compromise, it had agreed to set up of a panel. A

transparent approach was maintained during the drafting process through open endedconsultations and Hungary warmly welcomed the cross-regional statement under

agenda item 5 raising awareness about this issue. This resolution had previously beenintroduced to the Human Rights Commission and enjoyed broad support, and it was

hoped that this draft resolution would enjoy the broad support of the Council. In the

spirit of cooperation, Hungary made an oral revision which had distributed in a writtenform.

14

Documents

Consejo DDHH ONU crea Relatoria Verdad, Justicia, Reparación y no repetición 29SEP2011