Human Rights Council Holds Interactive Dialogue on the Prevention of Genocide and Starts Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

Council Hears Presentation of Thematic Reports Under Agenda Item Three on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

 

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus.  The Council also heard the presentation of thematic reports under agenda item three on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, said while new technologies had connected people, they had also been used for online surveillance and harassment, resulting in an exponential spread of online hate speech, often instrumentalised for political gain, that fomented division, violence, and in the most serious cases, atrocity crimes.  The increasing number of migrants and asylum seekers dying in transit, including at sea, constituted risk factors for atrocity crimes.  The imperative to prevent genocide was legal and moral.  This included acting early on the warning signs and indicators of risk, including violence and discrimination based on identity, hate speech and systematic violations of fundamental rights against civilian populations.  The failure to promptly respond to those warning signs allowed genocide to happen.  The prevention of genocide and related crimes was closely linked to ensuring accountability.  Failure to hold perpetrators accountable and allowing impunity increased the risk of future genocides. 

In the discussion on the prevention of genocide, some speakers said 75 years after the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the risks of new genocides still existed.  The international community was firmly committed to continue working with national and international partners, including civil society, to realise the promise of the responsibility to protect and to prevent genocide.  There were always warning signs before genocide happened, some speakers said.  It was typically preceded by discriminatory practices against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and patterns of human rights violations and abuses.  A proper identification of those signs and a prompt reaction to them, helped by the Secretary-General’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, was an important first step towards preventing genocide.  A number of speakers said there was no excuse for the failure to properly address situations where genocide was at risk of occurring.

Speaking in the discussion were the European Union, Denmark on behalf of a group of countries, United Kingdom on behalf of a group of countries, Costa Rica on behalf of a group of countries, Armenia on behalf of a group of countries, Ukraine on behalf of a group of countries, Liechtenstein, Germany, Israel, Italy, Costa Rica, Luxembourg, Armenia, United States, Australia, France, Iraq, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, Malawi, China, Switzerland, Cuba, Russian Federation, Montenegro, Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Rwanda, Panama, Cambodia, Greece, Türkiye, Argentina, United Kingdom and Indonesia.

Also speaking were the Commission nationale indépendante des droits de l'homme (Burundi), as well as the following non-governmental organizations: Jubilee Campaign, International Service for Human Rights, Conselho Indigenista Missionário, British Humanist Association, Centre for Global Nonkilling, China Ethnic Minorities’ Association for External Exchanges, Every Casualty Worldwide, World Jewish Congress, Sikh Human Rights Group, and the International Council of Russian Compatriots.

The Council then heard the presentation of six thematic reports submitted by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office. 

Peggy Hicks, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the reports included the Office’s oral report to the Council on the implementation of the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy across its programmes and operations; the report on the impact of technological advances on the prevention of genocide efforts and on the risks of the perpetration of genocide; the report on the implementation and enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; the report on the negative human rights impact of civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms and underlying root causes and risk factors driving the availability of firearms and firearms-related violence; the report on the relationship between human rights and technical standard-setting processes for new and emerging technologies and the practical application of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to the activities of technology companies; and the compendium of good practices of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in relation to access to medicines and vaccines in the context of the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

With this presentation, the Council concluded its consideration of item three on its agenda, namely the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.  Speaking in right of reply at the end of the item were Thailand, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Armenia, Japan, China and Republic of Moldova.

The Council then started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus.

Anaïs Marin, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, said since assuming the mandate five years ago, they had witnessed a steady deterioration of the human rights situation in Belarus, notably as repression reached unprecedented levels in 2020.  The situation remained catastrophic today and was unfortunately worsening.  The policy of the Government had effectively eradicated independent human rights defence groups from the Belarusian landscape, and complicated the work of international mechanisms established to monitor the human rights situation in the country.  The report to the Council focused on freedom of expression and highlighted the continuing repression against independent media and trade unions and restrictions to academic freedom.  Ms. Marin said the international community needed to continue gathering evidence of human rights violations, while continuing to seek engagement with the Belarusian Government.

Belarus was not present in the room to take the floor as a country concerned.

In the discussion on Belarus, some speakers said the human rights situation in Belarus was appalling, and strongly condemned the systematic and widespread violations of international human rights law in Belarus, including unlawful deprivation of life and numerous cases of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture and other ill-treatment, as well as sexual and gender-based violence.  Belarus had a climate of ongoing political repression against many groups of the population, with an ongoing impunity for human rights violations, which could represent crimes against humanity.  Speakers also strongly condemned the continued impunity for the excessive and disproportionate use of force during protests and deliberate attacks against civil society, pro-democratic movements, human rights defenders, persons belonging to national minorities, journalists and other independent media workers, and independent labour and trade unions members.

Speaking in the discussion were Estonia, European Union, Lithuania, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Liechtenstein, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Spain, United States, Belgium, France, Malta, United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, Greece, Slovakia, Switzerland, Republic of Moldova, Albania, Romania, Montenegro, Poland, Bulgaria and Ukraine.

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here.  All meeting summaries can be found here.  Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-third regular session can be found here.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 5 July, when it will continue the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus.  It will then hold an interactive dialogue on the oral update of the Independent International Fact-finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran and an interactive dialogue with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide

Presentation of Report

ALICE WAIRIMU NDERITU, Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, said while new technologies had connected people, they had also been used for online surveillance and harassment, resulting in an exponential spread of online hate speech, often instrumentalised for political gain, that fomented division, violence, and in the most serious cases, atrocity crimes.  The increasing number of migrants and asylum seekers dying in transit, including at sea, constituted risk factors for atrocity crimes.  In the Mediterranean, the violations and abuses documented, especially in Libya against refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers, could amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes.  Countries of transit or arrival of migrants needed to end the arbitrary arrests, confinements in inhumane conditions, and indefinite detention of migrants and refugees solely based on their migration status.  Safe and legal routes needed to be opened and greater efforts were urgently needed to strengthen search and rescue capacity in the Mediterranean Sea.

Emerging and protracted conflicts with devastating impact to human life continued to be evidenced in Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Mozambique and Burkina Faso.  There had been serious violations along identity lines in Afghanistan, Mali, Central African Republic and South Sudan, including continued reports of armed mobilisations in Upper Nile.  The United Nations Security Council invoked the Genocide Convention to set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  These courts showed the value in bringing forward evidence that might otherwise not have been disclosed, and had become a reference point, including for refuting ongoing genocide denial of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and the Srebrenica genocide. 

Growing tensions had been witnessed in Serbia and Kosovo, and there needed to be a strong investment in peace and reconciliation in the region.  In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, multiple attacks against civilians along ethnic lines, as well as of mass killings, sexual violence, abductions, destruction of property and attacks, continued unabated.  In Sudan, the Special Adviser was gravely concerned by the ongoing fighting between Sudan’s military and the Rapid Support Forces and deaths, injuries, displacements to thousands in a war that has no respect even for an Eid ceasefire.  She forewarned the Council that the conflict in Sudan had the capacity to trigger violence in the entire region, including along ethnic lines. 

In the Central Sahel region, intercommunal violence and violent extremism continued, with civilians facing targeted attacks.  In Myanmar, the crisis continued to present high risk for civilian populations, with the Rohingya remaining one of the most vulnerable minorities across the region.  Ethiopia was to be lauded for the peace agreement; however, Ethiopian authorities needed to strengthen national mechanisms for accountability of ethnic and religious tensions, hate speech and alleged serious human rights violations, address the root causes of ethnic violence, and foster national cohesion and reconciliation.  In Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Special Adviser echoed calls for dialogue and peace, and to avoid any escalation of tensions.  In Brazil, she welcomed the cooperation of the Government in facilitating her recent visit and following up on recommendations.  In Indonesia, the human rights situation in Papua remained deeply concerning.

The imperative to prevent genocide was legal and moral.  This included acting early on the warning signs and indicators of risk, including violence and discrimination based on identity, hate speech and systematic violations of fundamental rights against civilian populations.  The failure to promptly respond to those warning signs allowed genocide to happen.  The prevention of genocide and related crimes was closely linked to ensuring accountability.  Failure to hold perpetrators accountable and allowing impunity increased the risk of future genocides.  The Human Rights Council and its mechanisms continued to make important contributions in preventing genocide, including through the Universal Periodic Review.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, some speakers said 75 years after the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the risks of new genocides still existed.  The international community was firmly committed to continue working with national and international partners, including civil society, to realise the promise of the responsibility to protect and to prevent genocide.  The Convention was the first human rights treaty adopted by the General Assembly, one day before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Together, these documents outlined a vision of a world where genocide and other mass atrocities were prevented and punished.  This anniversary offered an opportunity to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to this objective and to reflect on best practices and challenges with regard to the Convention’s implementation.

There were always warning signs before genocide happened, some speakers said.  It was typically preceded by discriminatory practices against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and patterns of human rights violations and abuses.  A proper identification of those signs and a prompt reaction to them, helped by the Secretary-General’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, was an important first step towards preventing genocide.  As the report illustrated, in certain instances, technological advances could increase the risk of genocide, for example by spreading disinformation, hate speech and incitement through the social media platforms.  But they could also be instrumental for fact-finding, documentation and investigative purposes, significantly contributing to the prevention of and accountability for atrocity crimes.

Some speakers vowed to mobilise the political will to prevent genocide and other atrocity crimes, notably by using the Secretary-General’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, saying there was no excuse for the failure to properly address situations where genocide was at risk of occurring.  In this regard, speakers emphasised the role of the United Nations human rights system, including the Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and relevant Special Procedures and treaty bodies to collate information on violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that may lead to genocide.

A number of speakers said the Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect should share country-specific updates on warning signs and recommendations on atrocity prevention.  These would provide Member States with concrete advice on how to better implement the responsibility to protect from and prevent genocide.  This was especially meaningful in the context of the prevention mandate of the Human Rights Council.  Drawing the world’s attention to situations at risk of atrocity crimes required follow-up actions and coordinated efforts in order to truly make prevention work. 

The use of casualty records to present evidence-based arguments in the Joint Office’s advocacy was an important tool and the Special Adviser should continue highlighting these figures in public statements.  Another important tool was the close cooperation with other United Nations entities and mechanisms, such as for example treaty bodies.  The responsibility to prevent atrocities cut across the whole United Nations system, and speakers encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to play a key role in ensuring that an atrocity prevention lens was applied across the United Nations’ work.  One speaker called on the Office to prioritise drawing information from across the system to inform an effective approach to early warning.

Among questions raised were: could the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect share actionable recommendations with Member States to address specific country situations at risk of or already experiencing atrocity crimes; how often did the Special Adviser share her country analysis on atrocity risks with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Special Procedures under the Human Rights Council; how did the Special Adviser’s Office interact with and follow up on treaty body recommendations; what follow-up action was intended where treaty bodies and other United Nations bodies specifically offered their recommendations to the Special Adviser’s Office; how could the Office of the Special Adviser help to bridge the gap between Geneva and New York in order to aid in the prevention of further atrocities; how to encourage technology companies to cooperate with the mandate in order to prevent genocide; and how was the Special Adviser’s office working with the High Commissioner for Human Rights to gather and use information on human rights globally.

Concluding Remarks

ALICE WAIRIMU NDERITU, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, said her mandate worked closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and statements were issued in collaboration.  Her Office worked closely with Special Rapporteurs and treaty bodies.  There was no gap between Geneva and New York in terms of the offices.  Tomorrow a policy would be issued based on conversations with tech and social media companies, which looked at how to combat hate speech moving forward. The Office was aware of the revised portion of the guidelines of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on early warnings and urgent actions procedures which made reference to the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide.  Brazil had ratified the Convention on Genocide and had the capacity to take action and take decisions.  There had been a ratification from Zambia which was positive.  The framework for the Office was drawn from the Convention on Genocide; the Office did not operate retroactively. 

Presentation of Thematic Reports Submitted by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office under Item Three on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

Reports

The Council has before it the Report of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women on the activities of the United Nations trust fund in support of actions to eliminate violence against women (A/HRC/53/18);
the report on the Expert workshop on possible ways to enhance the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the work of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/53/44);
the report on The relationship between human rights and technical standard-setting processes for new and emerging digital technologies and the practical application of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to the activities of technology companies (A/HRC/53/42);
the report on the Implementation and enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (A/HRC/53/46);
the report on the Impact of the civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms (A/HRC/53/49);
a Compendium of good practices on access to medicines, vaccines and other health products in the context of the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/HRC/53/50);
a Note by the Secretariat on the Human rights of migrants (A/HRC/53/51);
and a report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Panel discussion on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/HRC/53/43).

Presentation of Reports

PEGGY HICKS, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the thematic reports of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner under item three of the Council’s agenda on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, said concerning the Office’s oral report to the Council on the implementation of the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy across its programmes and operations, the Office had  maintained its performance to date and improved it in some areas.  It continued to exceed performance in four areas, namely on (1) leadership, (2) disability-specific policy, (3) reasonable accommodation, and (4) joint initiatives.  It was worth noting that to sustain and further improve its performance, additional resources and enhanced capacity were necessary.

The report on the impact of technological advances on prevention of genocide efforts and on the risks of the perpetration of genocide (A/HRC/53/45) focused on how technological advances could help prevent genocide.  It also took stock of the risks that digital technologies could pose to the right to freedom of expression and other human rights. Technological safeguards were needed to ensure the prevention of genocide and the protection of human rights in the digital space.  Member States should meet their obligations under the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to safeguard against human rights harms by companies, including by requiring due diligence throughout the lifecycle of technological tools and digital infrastructure, and integrating specific risk factors related to atrocity crimes.

The report on the implementation and enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (A/HRC/53/46) highlighted the need to strengthen international cooperation in the pursuit of mutually reinforcing and foundational policy pathways to transformative change.  It also emphasised that human rights must be at the heart of a new social contract and more inclusive and effective multilateralism.  The report recommended that the United Nations urgently step up its ambition and operationalisation of human rights integration in common country analyses and cooperation frameworks, and called on Member States to work together to adopt a legally binding instrument on the right to development and operationalise this right.

The report on the negative human rights impact of civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms and underlying root causes and risk factors driving the availability of firearms and firearms-related violence (A/HRC/53/49) focused on the way in which business enterprises, in particular the firearms industry, contributed to the availability of firearms by driving supply and demand.  The report documented how firearms businesses contributed to driving the demand for firearms.  The report found that the firearms industry, including firearms industry associations, manufacturers and dealers, had not taken adequate steps to conform with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.  It concluded with recommendations to States and businesses.  States should increase their efforts to address the negative human rights impacts resulting from contributions by businesses to drive supply and demand for firearms by civilians.

The report on the relationship between human rights and technical standard-setting processes for new and emerging technologies and the practical application of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to the activities of technology companies (A/HRC/53/42) identified a widespread lack of human rights expertise and capacity within standard-setting processes, as well as persistent transparency gaps.  The report also discussed shortcomings in participation within standard setting organizations.  Addressing these challenges required sustained multidimensional efforts by States, standard-setting organizations and all stakeholders.  Human rights must be placed front and centre in these efforts.

The compendium of good practices of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in relation to access to medicines and vaccines in the context of the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/HRC/53/50) stated that governments, national and international actors, the private sector and civil society had a shared responsibility to provide access to medicines and vaccines for all.  It was essential that States guaranteed the right to health in compliance with their obligations under the economic, social and cultural rights framework, and that pharmaceutical companies lived up to their responsibility to respect.  Among the few good practices promoting the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of essential medicines, vaccines and other health products identified in the context of this compendium, were practices that were underpinned by a human rights-based approach and that ensured meaningful participation of all concerned, including civil society organizations and patients and consumer organizations.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

Report

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus (A/HRC/53/53).

Presentation of Report

ANAÏS MARIN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, said since assuming the mandate five years ago, they had witnessed a steady deterioration of the human rights situation in Belarus, notably as repression reached unprecedented levels in 2020.  The situation remained catastrophic today and was unfortunately worsening.  The Belarusian Government had amended an already restrictive legislation aimed at dismantling civic freedoms, leading to a surge in politically motivated prosecutions and sentencing.  More than 1,500 individuals were still being detained on politically motivated charges, with an average of 17 arbitrary arrests occurring daily since 2020.  This year saw an increase in the practice of incommunicado detention, which targeted political opposition members and civil society activists currently behind bars. 

Prominent political figures, such as Siarhiej Tsikhanousky, Maria Kalesnikava, and Viktar Barbaryka, suffered ill-treatment in punishment cells, where they were systematically denied basic rights.  Over 1,600 undesirable organizations had been forcibly dissolved, including all remaining independent trade unions.  This policy had effectively eradicated independent human rights defence groups from the Belarusian landscape, and complicated the work of international mechanisms established to monitor the human rights situation in the country.  The criminal prosecution of Viasna and its personnel, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski, was a distressing example of this repression.  Over 100 lawyers had been disbarred since 2020, which severely impacted the rights to defence and due process for victims of human rights violations.  No one had been held accountable in Belarus for arbitrarily detaining tens of thousands of peaceful protesters in 2020.  This general impunity, and the climate of fear resulting from ongoing repression, had compelled hundreds of thousands of Belarusians into exile.

The report to the Council focused on freedom of expression and highlighted the continuing repression against independent media and trade unions and restrictions to academic freedom.  Independent media outlets had been labelled as extremist organizations and banned, while journalists and media workers experienced raids, arrests and detentions.  The authorities had restricted the informational space to State-controlled media, while independent sources, labelled as “extremist”, faced censorship and content blocking.  Academic freedom was systematically attacked in Belarus and academics critical of the Government were discriminated against and dismissed from their workplace.  In schools, children were discouraged from expressing their own opinions, especially on political issues. 

The right to education for linguistic minorities was also being challenged, with the closure of Polish language schools.  Individuals also faced challenges to their freedom of opinion and expression when trying to speak out against the armed attack by Russia on Ukraine.  Anti-war actions had led to numerous detentions and arrests, some on charges of planning terrorist attacks, a crime which could be punished by death.  The disregard for human life and dignity was evident during the crackdown against peaceful protesters in 2020 and there had been no thorough investigation into the crimes committed by law enforcement.  The international community needed to continue gathering evidence of human rights violations, while continuing to seek engagement with the Belarusian Government.  Ms. Marin called upon the Belarusian authorities to fulfil their international human rights obligations.

Statement by Country Concerned

The President of the Council said Belarus was not present in the room to take the floor as the country concerned.

Discussion

In the discussion, some speakers said the human rights situation in Belarus was appalling.  Since 2020, there had been hundreds of raids on media offices and private homes of journalists and media workers, who faced serious legal consequences and prison sentences.  Over 600 professionals had been arrested and more than 100,000 Belarusians had been forced into exile.  A number of speakers strongly condemned the systematic and widespread violations of international human rights law in Belarus, including unlawful deprivation of life and numerous cases of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture and other ill-treatment, as well as sexual and gender-based violence.  Belarus had a climate of ongoing political repression against many groups of the population, with an ongoing impunity for human rights violations, which could represent crimes against humanity.

Some speakers also strongly condemned the continued impunity for the excessive and disproportionate use of force during protests and deliberate attacks against civil society, pro-democratic movements, human rights defenders, persons belonging to national minorities, journalists and other independent media workers, and independent labour and trade unions members.  They expressed concern about the weaponisation of the criminal justice system against human rights defenders, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski, Valiantsin Stefanovich, Uladzimir Labkovich and Dzmitriy Salauvyou from the Viasna Human Rights Centre, who were sentenced on politically motivated charges on 3 March 2023.

The shutdown of multiple civil society organizations was an example of intimidation and judicial harassment which could not be tolerated; civic space must be protected.  Additionally, several legislative amendments in recent years had deliberately limited the right to freedom of expression and exacerbated the shrinking of civil society and media space.  The Government of Belarus should immediately repeal all such legislation and conduct credible and independent investigations into these incidents.  The extension of the death penalty for certain crimes must be reversed, and a moratorium on the penalty put into place.

By allowing and enabling Russia to use the territory of Belarus for Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, the leadership of Belarus was responsible for the act of the aggression, some speakers said.  Those responsible must be held accountable for violations of international law.  There was also concern that the deployment of nuclear weapons to Belarus could lead to a further escalation of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, with potentially devastating consequences for the whole world.  Disregarding the rights of the child, Belarus had started the militarisation and politicisation of school programmes.  Hundreds of Ukrainian children had also been allegedly forcibly transferred to Belarus, which implied that Lukashenko may be considered directly responsible for such a despicable war crime.

Belarus should immediately and unconditionally release all arbitrarily detained persons, provide them with full legal redress, and conduct independent and transparent investigations into all allegations of human rights violations.  In this process, it was also vital for Belarus to fully abide by its international obligations.  Belarus should implement the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations and grant the mandate holder unrestricted access to Belarus.  The authorities should respect their citizens’ right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Belarussian constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Belarus was a State party.

Among questions posed by speakers were: how could the international community ensure accountability for the persecution by the Belarusian authorities of journalists, human rights defenders and civil society organizations; could the Special Rapporteur shed light on how the Council could better support the suppressed civil society and independent media in Belarus; what was the Special Rapporteur’s view on how the international community could better support Belarusian journalists and media workers in exile, including on how to effectively reach audiences inside Belarus; given the important role of civil society in promoting human rights on the ground, could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on how best the international community could support the work of civil society in Belarus; and could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on what impact the crackdown on civil society in Belarus had for the upcoming parliamentary election in the country?  The report paid particular attention to the crackdown against academics, teachers, and students in Belarus for holding and expressing dissenting opinions - how could the international community effectively support also those who had not yet fled the country?

 

Link: ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2023/07/afternoon-human-rights-council-holds-interactive-dialogue

 

___________

 

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.