MIDDAY

5 March 2012

The Human Rights Council held an interactive dialogue during its midday meeting today with the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

Juan Ernesto Mendes, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said that the focus of his main thematic report was commissions of inquiry in order to deepen the understanding of the international community on when such commissions should be created in response to patterns of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. On his visit to Tunisia in May 2011, the Special Rapporteur recommended that a fact-finding mission established to investigate abuses committed during the revolution and its aftermath should complete its work as soon as possible and urged full and honest reckoning with the legacy of torture in the preceding 23 years of autocracy rule. The country visit to Kyrgyzstan had taken place in December 2011. There were significant gaps in legislation, policies and law enforcement practices in Kyrgyzstan.

Margaret Sekaggya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said her fourth thematic report focused on human rights defenders at particular risk: journalists and media workers, defenders working on environmental and land issues, and youth and student defenders. On her January 2011 visit to India and the challenges faced by human rights defenders there, she said such defenders were often labelled ‘Naxalites (Maoists)’, ‘militants’ or ‘anti-nationalists’, and they had been killed, tortured, disappeared or arbitrarily arrested and detained. Instances of violations by armed groups against human rights defenders, and the chronic problem of impunity, were of great concern. India should be proud of its human rights defenders, who were a key asset in advancing human rights and democratic governance.

Tunisia, speaking as a concerned country, said that Tunisia welcomed the objectivity and professionalism of the Special Rapporteur on torture and noted that the recommendations in the report would help Tunisia to eradicate torture, bring to justice those who were guilty of committing torture and provide reparation for victims and their families. The Government reaffirmed its commitment to eradicate and combat torture and stressed its willingness to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on torture and with all Special Procedure mechanisms.

Kyrgyzstan, speaking as a concerned country, said the Government of Kyrgyzstan invited the Rapporteur on torture to visit because Kyrgyzstan was interested in having a full picture of the existing practice of torture. It should be noted that the existing system had been inherited and was connected to present challenges of economic development and political transformation. Kyrgyzstan called upon the Special Rapporteur to help Kyrgyzstan in accordance with his mandate to provide solutions. Kyrgyzstan was firmly resolved to fight the use of torture in the country.

India, speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders for her visit to India from 10 to 21 January 2011, and assured her that India was conscious of the need to ensure accountability for law enforcement officials. The Special Rapporteur’s observations that most human rights violations were attributed to law enforcement authorities were unsubstantiated and generalized accounts of alleged cases from a few non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that did not represent the many eminent NGOs which had done such commendable work in India.

In the interactive debate on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on torture, speakers said that commissions of inquiry could be useful to address accusations of torture and stressed that they should and could lead to independent judicial actions. Others said that the general discussion on the establishment of commissions of inquiry fell outside of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture. National commissions should precede international ones and should be given enough time to complete their work without interference. No threat, including the threat of terrorism, could justify the use of torture.

In the interactive debate on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, speakers said she should elaborate on how new actors such as bloggers and citizen journalists could enjoy the same lines of protection as human rights defenders. Others said that human rights defenders had obligations as well as rights and stressed that there should be a necessary balance between rights and obligations. It was important to look into the responsibilities of human rights defenders as their work in the defence of human rights could not confer on them a privileged status. Governments should provide an environment conducive to human rights defenders operating within the framework of national legislation.

Speaking in the interactive debate were Belgium, Ecuador, Morocco, Honduras, Senegal on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Bahrain, United States, Argentina, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, European Union, Cuba, Malaysia, China, Chile, Algeria, South Africa, Norway, United Kingdom, Egypt, Australia, Spain, Poland, Greece, Republic of Moldova, Ireland, Uruguay, Tunisia, Austria, Costa Rica, Turkey, Belarus, Paraguay, Bangladesh, Botswana, Indonesia, Czech republic, Colombia, Brazil, Uzbekistan, France, Switzerland, Armenia, Georgia, Nepal, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sri Lanka.

Organisation Internationale de Francophonie also took the floor, as did the following national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations: National Human Rights Council of Morocco, World Organization against Torture, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, International Service for Human Rights, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, International Federation for Human Rights League, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, and Amnesty International.

At 4:45 p.m., the Council will hear the presentation of reports by the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, which will be followed by an interactive dialogue.

Documentation

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/HRC/19/61)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concerning his mission to Tunisia (A/HRC/19/61/Add.1)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concerning his mission to Kyrgyzstan (A/HRC/19/61/Add.2)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concerning follow up to country missions (A/HRC/19/61/Add.3)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concerning observations on communications (A/HRC/19/61/Add.4)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concerning comments by the State on the report of the Special Rapporteur on his mission to Kyrgyzstan (A/HRC/19/61/Add.5)

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (A/HRC/19/55)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders concerning his mission to India (A/HRC/19/55/Add.1)

The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders concerning observations on communications (A/HRC/19/55/Add.2)

Presentation of Reports on Torture and on Human Rights Defenders

JUAN ERNESTO MENDES, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said that he had visited Tunisia and Kyrgyzstan in 2011 and expressed his regret that the planned visit to Bahrain this month had been postponed by the Government. Following the request of the Special Rapporteur in February 2011 to visit the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and to conduct unsupervised interviews with detainees, the United States had extended an invitation to visit and receive high level briefings. However, because the visit could not include private interviews with detainees, the Special Rapporteur had not been able to comply with this invitation as it was contrary to the principles contained in the Terms of Reference for fact-finding missions by Special Rapporteurs.

Mr. Mendes further said that the focus of his main thematic report was commissions of inquiry in order to deepen the understanding of the international community on when such commissions should be created in response to patterns of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. When used properly, commissions of inquiry could be a powerful tool in uncovering and bringing an end to patterns of violations of torture and ill-treatment, Mr. Mendes highlighted. On his visit to Tunisia in May 2011, the Special Rapporteur said that its objective had been assisting the Government to lay the foundation of the rule of law and implementing the absolute prohibition of torture. The Special Rapporteur recommended that a fact-finding mission established to investigate abuses committed during the revolution and its aftermath should complete its work as soon as possible and urged full and honest reckoning with the legacy of torture in the preceding 23 years of autocracy rule. The country visit to Kyrgyzstan had taken place in December 2011. There were significant gaps in legislation, policies and law enforcement practices. The lack of effective legislative safeguards against torture and ill-treatment and the insignificant sanctions provided for the crime of torture created an environment conducive to impunity.

MARGARET SEKAGGYA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said her fourth thematic report focused on human rights defenders at particular risk: journalists and media workers, defenders working on environmental and land issues, and youth and student defenders. The Special Rapporteur was appalled by the number of journalists killed while reporting on human rights abuses. Physical attacks, arrests, interrogation and torture were used to intimidate and silence journalists, particularly when they witnessed human rights violations themselves, or were in armed conflicts, post-conflict or coup d’état situations, or contested elections. Defending land and environmental issues in connection with extractive industries and construction and development projects proved to be a dangerous task for human rights defenders, and multinational corporations and private security companies had perpetrated violations. During recent events, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, youth and student defenders had suffered killings, physical attacks, arrests, torture, enforced disappearances and forced labour by police and security forces during demonstrations and while in detention. Judicial harassment was also frequently applied.

On her January 2011 visit to India and the challenges faced by human rights defenders there, she said such defenders were often labelled ‘Naxalites (Maoists)’, ‘militants’ or ‘anti-nationalists’, and they had been killed, tortured, disappeared or arbitrarily arrested and detained. Instances of violations by armed groups against human rights defenders, and the chronic problem of impunity, were of great concern. India should be proud of its human rights defenders, who were a key asset in advancing human rights and democratic governance. The Special Rapporteur also referred to communications received from Bahrain and Syria, and the on-going situation in Sri Lanka.

Statements by Concerned Countries

Tunisia, speaking as a concerned country, said that Tunisia welcomed the objectivity and professionalism of the Special Rapporteur on torture and noted that the recommendations in the report would help Tunisia to eradicate torture, bring to justice those who were guilty of committing torture, and provide reparation for victims and their families. The Government, as part of a follow-up to the report’s recommendations, had elaborated an action plan to accelerate the processing of complaints of torture. Judicial instructions had been put in place concerning the victims of the events that had immediately preceded and followed the revolution. A number of important investigations were opened to address the accusations of torture by the previous regime and a mechanism for judicial assistance was in formation. A legal decree adopted in October 2011 had provided a new definition of torture in compliance with international standards, including that confessions obtained under torture or duress were inadmissible. Non-governmental organizations had carried out inspection visits to Tunisian prisons without any restrictions. An independent body would be created to supervise the judiciary and to reform judicial structures. The Government reaffirmed its commitment to eradicate and combat torture and stressed its willingness to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on torture and with all Special Procedure mechanisms.

Kyrgyzstan, speaking as a concerned country, said the Government of Kyrgyzstan invited the Rapporteur on torture to visit because Kyrgyzstan was interested in having a full picture of the existing practice of torture. It should be noted that the existing system had been inherited and was connected to present challenges of economic development and political transformation. Kyrgyzstan was thankful to the Special Rapporteur for his reflection on measures that the Government of Kyrgyzstan was implementing to correct the situation. Kyrgyzstan agreed with many conclusions and critical remarks of the Special Rapporteur. However, it had also presented a number of its own comments. Presently, Kyrgyzstan was working to bring existing legislation in accordance with the new constitution adopted in 2010 and with international commitments in the field of human rights, including standards connected with torture prevention. Since investigations of torture cases were complex, recommendations on investigations of torture were being developed. Kyrgyzstan called upon the Special Rapporteur to help Kyrgyzstan in accordance with his mandate to provide solutions. Kyrgyzstan noted that two officers of the Interior Ministry, who had hindered full access to the Special Rapporteur to detention facilities, had been brought to disciplinary accountability. Kyrgyzstan was firmly resolved to fight the use of torture in the country.

India, speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders for her visit to India from 10 to 21 January 2011, and assured her that India was conscious of the need to ensure accountability for law enforcement officials. The Special Rapporteur had observed that the functioning of the judiciary was hampered by backlogs, delays and high costs, so India drew her attention to the Human Rights Courts which provided speedy trial of cases related to human rights violations, and the large expansion of free legal services for weaker sections of society. Given that over two million individuals worked in India’s law enforcement agencies, India was conscious of the need to improve their human rights education and training, although law and order was already a State subject. The Special Rapporteur’s observations that most human rights violations were attributed to law enforcement authorities were unsubstantiated and generalized accounts of alleged cases from a few non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that did not represent the many eminent NGOs who had done such commendable work in India. India had been the victim of terrorist attacks, including one on the parliament, and thousands of law enforcement personnel worked to protect India from the threat of terrorism. India supported the work of the Special Rapporteur and her independence, and affirmed that such independence must be absolute in every sense – including from over-activist NGOs, donors and ideological extremists.

Interactive Debate

Belgium said that commissions of inquiry could be useful to address accusations of torture and stressed that they should and could lead to independent judicial actions. Belgium asked the Special Rapporteur how there could be a better protection of the presumption of innocence? Concerning the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, could she elaborate on how new actors such as bloggers and citizen journalists could enjoy the same lines of protection as human rights defenders.

Ecuador asked that the Special Rapporteur on torture address the issue of amnesty laws and how they interacted with the fight against impunity. Ecuador confirmed its readiness to cooperate on an ongoing basis with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and noted that the Government had provided normative guarantees to protect human rights defenders.

Morocco said that the Special Rapporteur on torture’s report devoted to commissions of inquiry would give States a reference document in the fight against impunity. Morocco had created a body, unique to the Arab world, to review serious violations of human rights. Human rights defenders also had obligations and Morocco stressed that there should be a necessary balance between rights and obligations.

Honduras said the Special Rapporteur established that the media and human rights defenders working on land and the environment were particularly vulnerable. The Government of Honduras was fully ready to implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.

Senegal, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the same laws applied to human rights defenders as other citizens. What corrective measures could be taken to respond to human rights violations made by non-state groups?

Iran said adopting overly broad definitions of terrorism carried the potential for deliberate misuse of the term. One of the worst forms of violations had been the use of secret or acknowledged detention centres where shameful torture and interrogation methods took place, involving serious violations of human rights.

Bahrain welcomed the forthcoming visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture to Bahrain, adding that Bahrain had wished to postpone the visit until July to give the Kingdom time to implement all the reforms recommended by the National Committee set up in response to the 2011 events in Bahrain.

United States said while commissions of inquiry should respect the presumption of innocence, they should make public the identification of institutional responsibility. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believed in the critical role played by civil society in democratic societies, and the United States saluted human rights defenders, journalists and members of the media who courageously risked their lives to produce vital reports.

Argentina said Argentina hoped to adopt laws in 2012 to establish a defence mechanism for human rights, and next month would welcome the United Nations Sub-Committee against Torture. Since 2007 Argentina had awarded the Emilio F. Mignone International Human Rights Prize to foreign organizations fighting systematic human rights violations, and announced that the 2011 recipient was the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims in Denmark.

Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that the general discussion on the establishment of commissions of inquiry fell outside of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation agreed that national commissions should precede international ones and should be given enough time to complete their work without interference. On human rights defenders, Governments should provide an environment conducive to human rights defenders operating within the framework of national legislation.

European Union asked the Special Rapporteur on torture which were the key challenges to establishing commissions of inquiry in post-conflict situations and how the international community could best contribute to discussions on solitary confinement. The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders to provide further analysis on protection and support for journalists, media workers, bloggers and human rights defenders working on land and environment issues.

Cuba said that there were other issues the Special Rapporteur on torture could have selected for his annual report, for example a report on the torture of thousands of “indignados” (the outraged movement) in the United States. The Special Rapporteur had omitted in his report an important element, which was the consent of the State for any commission of inquiry as Cuba believed that conditions imposed from outside doomed a commission to fail.

Malaysia said that human rights defenders should be mindful of relevant national legislation in carrying out their work. The rights given to protestors should be balanced against the obligation of the State to maintain peaceful assemblies. Malaysia agreed that law enforcement officers should be trained in human rights standards.

China said China had put in place improved judicial mechanisms to prevent torture and stressed that the promotion and protection of human rights was the sovereign function of the State. China supported the role of human rights defenders but noted that the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders lacked a clear definition on human rights defenders and Governments could view some defenders as terrorists.

Chile said Chile was concerned about the harassment of and assault against human rights defenders who promoted the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to vulnerable groups. Chile strongly supported the work of human rights defenders and noted that commissions of inquiry had been a central component of defending rights and providing reparations not only in Chile but across Latin America.

Algeria said the sources of information used by commissions of inquiry should be reliable and the information should be based on proven facts. Regarding the question of who was a ‘human rights defender’, the definition was broad but the status of ‘human rights defender’ gave a person responsibilities, including to work within the framework of their own country.

South Africa said following the demise of Apartheid, the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission had forgiven perpetrators of some of the gravest violations for national reconciliation and nation-building purposes. However, it seemed such forgiveness encouraged impunity and did not satisfy the victims’ need for justice due to perceived lack of accountability. South Africa asked the Special Rapporteur’s view on how best to reconcile those perspectives.

Norway asked the Special Rapporteur on torture to what extent commissions of inquiry could establish accountability in transitional States in the Middle East and North Africa. Norway was gravely concerned by the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders report which concluded that risks to human rights defenders could affect their physical integrity, criminalize their work and make them vulnerable to judicial abuse.

United Kingdom said the United Kingdom appreciated the role that both Special Rapporteurs played in raising awareness about the treatment of human rights defenders in detention centres in Syria. Learning lessons from commissions of inquiry were vital to their success. The United Kingdom expressed hope that the Special Rapporteur would be able to visit Bahrain soon and work together with the commission of inquiry there.

Egypt agreed that commissions of inquiry could provide a crucial role in examining systems for legacies of torture and asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the separation of work and tasks if a commission of inquiry preceded formal criminal prosecution. A good addition to the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders would be the work of human rights defenders on issues relating to financial or economic situations and in monitoring trans-national corporations.

Australia welcomed the crucial role that journalists played in covering the grave situation in Syria and said that tackling human rights violations against media workers was essential for their safety. Australia asked to hear the Special Rapporteur’s views on how relevant protections could be effectively extended to other non-official and community human rights defenders.

Spain said Spain welcomed the focus on journalists and those human rights defenders who dealt with environmental and land issues as they worked to protect the rights of indigenous and minority communities. Could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on the major obstacle to achieving the right balance between economic development and respecting the environment?

Poland said that Poland was firmly committed to the promotion and protection of the freedom of expression, assembly, and association. Could the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders elaborate further on specific instruments that could be applied to improve the situation of human rights defenders and to prevent human rights violations against them?

Greece said that substantial legislation had been adopted and implemented in order to address illegal migration including the establishment of an asylum service. First Reception Centres were operational in areas of high migratory pressure with screening processes to identify vulnerable groups, especially unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers entering Greece illegally.

Republic of Moldova appreciated the Special Rapporteur on torture’s positive reference to the efforts of the Republic of Moldova to eradicate torture following his visit in 2008, which included reforms of the criminal justice system, the police, and the penitentiary system, as well as surveillance systems installed in all police stations to monitor compliance of the detention regime.

Ireland said recent events had underlined the crucial role that journalists played and the risks to which they were exposed, and asked how the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders could promote the specific importance of their role. Ireland asked the Special Rapporteur on torture how victims could be involved in the establishment of commissions of inquiry and the determination of appropriate repatriations.

Uruguay referred to the visit of the previous Special Rapporteur on torture to Uruguay in March 2009, and the subsequent reforms and implementation of recommendations, particularly improvement of prison conditions for both women and men, and reduction of overcrowding. Uruguay agreed that States should more effectively protect the rights and physical integrity of human rights defenders.

Tunisia said that over the past several months there had been no arrests, acts of violence or reprisals against human rights defenders or journalists covering manifestations or reporting on human rights violations in Tunisia. The creation of the Ministry of Human Rights and Transitional Justice was a direct manifestation of the break with the past in this country.

Austria asked the Special Rapporteur on torture to elaborate on how commissions of inquiry could be used to trigger transitional justice mechanisms. The wide scale impunity for violations against journalists was alarming and Austria asked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders to elaborate on the role the Council could play in ensuring better protection for journalists.

Costa Rica said it would be useful to have a compendium of best practices and standards for the establishment of commissions of inquiry and asked the Special Rapporteur to provide examples where national commissions were more effective then international ones. Costa Rica welcomed the inclusion in the report of Ms. Sekaggya of human rights defenders working on the land and environment issues and said it was unfortunate that those defenders were most at risk in Latin America.

Turkey said Turkey extensively benefited from cooperation with the United Nations Committee against Torture and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Turkey attached great importance to this cooperation and considered the recommendations as useful guidelines. The success of the zero tolerance policy in particular and the reforms achieved in relevant legislation were acknowledged by the United Nations Committee against Torture itself.

Belarus said the Special Rapportuer on torture was not able to understand the Bialiatski case due to the influence of stereotypical views spread by European non-governmental organizations. The court ruling on Bialiatski had nothing to do with his human rights activities, only with the violation of fiscal legislation. Belarus recommended that the Special Rapporteur not get carried away with criminal cases related to tax evasion. Belarus called on the Special Rapportuer to more closely study the situation and more closely consider the views of Governments.

Paraguay said Paraguay had gone through a number of dictatorships resulting in cases of victims which the Government was trying to address. Paraguay had acceded to international mechanisms concerned with torture and created the Truth and Justice Commission to investigation violations of human rights. The Ministry of Education incorporated recent history in the educational curriculum.

Organisation Internationale de Francophonie said that no threat, including the threat of terrorism, could justify the use of torture. The Organisation Internationale de Francophonie had funded for several years projects to improve mechanisms to fight against torture in addition to non-governmental organizations working in the area of torture and against cruel and inhumane treatment.

Bangladesh said that it was important to look into the responsibilities of human rights defenders as their work in the defence of human rights could not confer on them a privileged status. Politically motivated actors and perpetrators should not be confused with human rights defenders. Could the Special Rapporteur shed light on how States could address hacking and bribery by journalists?

Botswana said that Botswana agreed that commissions of inquiry could not relieve the State of its international legal obligations to investigate allegations, prosecute perpetrators and provide effective remedies to victims of torture. Concerning the use of national security to curtain the freedom of the press, could the Special Rapporteur outline what would constitute a reasonable balance between security and freedom.

Indonesia said Indonesia was committed to continuing the process of the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and reiterated its commitment to combating impunity and supporting all efforts on this pertinent issue. Indonesia asked the Special Rapporteur on the best methods to build standards in establishing and conducting commissions of inquiry while at the same time promoting flexible mechanisms of the commissions.

Czech Republic agreed that commissions of inquiry could provide impulse for a formal investigation of legacies of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The Czech Republic asked the Special Rapporteur on torture to elaborate on his activities on Belarus. It asked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders to talks about the best safeguards that States should employ in preventing non-State actors from attacking and harassing human rights defenders working on land and environment issues.

Iraq said that there were many instances of forced disappearances in Iraq because that had been one of the ways to silence the people by the Saddam regime and more recently by terrorist groups. The Government had announced that more than 70,000 Iraqis had been killed in terrorist attacks.

Colombia paid particular attention to the comments of the Special Rapporteur on journalists and activists working on the environment and land. Colombia was working to implement a law on victims and restitution of land. With the goal of being more efficient for protecting human rights defenders and labour activists, the National Unit of Protection was set up under the Ministry of the Interior.

Brazil said the Brazilian Government spared no effort to prevent torture and to hold accountable those responsible. The Brazilian Government attached great importance to the work of human rights defenders. While the report highlighted the situation of defenders covered by 25 per cent of the communications issued by the Special Rapporteur, the Brazilian delegation would be interested to learn about the situation of the other 75 per cent of persons of concern.

Uzbekistan expressed regret that the information submitted by Uzbekistan to the Special Rapporteur was not incorporated into the report. If this had been the case, some unsubstantiated claims would not have been included. Incorporating the responses of States into reports allowed for more objective consideration of issues. Uzbekistan was taking action to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading forms of treatment, including the implementation of a national plan of action.

France said that commissions of inquiry had to overcome the challenge of gathering statements as witnesses were not always willing to cooperate as they feared reprisals. France asked if the Special Rapporteur could specify the best ways to promote witness protection. France was concerned by the high price paid by journalists in Syria and paid homage to their memory.

Switzerland said there was a need to elaborate on best practices in commissions of inquiry. Switzerland was concerned about the situation of human rights defenders in Belarus, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Honduras and Iran. What measures should be taken to prevent intimidation against journalists and media professionals?

Armenia said that in 2011, an inter-ministerial committee was established to draft a progress report on the implementation of the Government’s international treaty obligations which would be issued in 2012. There were over 5,000 non-governmental organizations operating in the country. The Government was willing to cooperate with all Special Procedures and to implement their recommendations.

Georgia said that the Government of Georgia was actively following up on the recommendations by the Special Rapporteur on torture after his visit to the country, including the adoption of a Strategy to Combat Ill-treatment and its National Action Plan. The Government remained committed to ensuring the effective functioning of the national preventive mechanism which was considered to be a model in the region.

Nepal reiterated the commitment of Nepal to end torture in all its forms and was in the process of adopting specific legislation criminalizing torture in the spirit of the Convention. Nepal attached greatest importance to the protection of human rights defenders and was considering adopting a special programme to ensure their further protection.

Democratic Republic of the Congo reiterated its commitment to the protection of the rights of human rights defenders and disagreed with the statement of the Special Rapporteur concerning a fresh outbreak of violence against human rights defenders in the electoral period. The Government reiterated its commitment to ending torture, the evidence of which was legislation criminalizing torture, which had been one of the recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review.

Sri Lanka said that Sri Lanka had taken on board and implemented several recommendations made by previous mandate holders on torture and human rights defenders. Sri Lanka cautioned the Council on the use of the term human rights defenders which was very amorphous. Sri Lanka was sensitive to the urgent need to protect civil rights and particularly to protect from torture and ensured the Council of its full cooperation in this matter.

National Human Rights Council of Morocco said the Commission on Truth of Morocco had looked into violations committed after independence, culminating in the publication of a final report and recommendations for community action. A National Council had carried out several truth commissions and drew up a handbook for visiting detention centers.

World Organization Against Torture said experience showed that commissions of inquiry were often an important first step that required political will to follow through in implementing recommendations and ensuring legal responsibility. The World Organization against Torture asked what follow-up was required in relation to the events in the south of Kyrgyzstan to ensure accountability.

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, in a joint statement, said the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders showed how Indian human rights defenders carried out their work and faced threats, arbitrary arrests, detention and even death, committed with widespread impunity. The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development shared the Special Rapporteur’s concern over violent attacks and criminalization of defenders working on land rights and environmental issues.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said it was concerned about legislative efforts that sought to criminalize the so-called ‘promotion of homosexuality’. These efforts were meant to severely restrict the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to challenge discrimination, violence and other abuses and undermined the entire human rights framework.

International Service for Human Rights said that sex discrimination and gender inequality was at the heart of continued discrimination against female human rights defenders around the world. Female journalists who worked on human rights issues had received death threats. The Human Rights Council should play a critical role in defending female human rights defenders around the world.

Colombian Commission of Jurists said that 55 human rights defenders in Colombia were victims of violations in 2011 because of their work, the highest number since 1996. Defenders who worked on land issues and the implementation of the law on the restitution of land rights were particularly vulnerable because their work threatened armed groups.

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies said that civil society in Egypt was facing the worst crack down since its emergence. In this critical time in Egypt’s history, the Cairo Institute urged the Special Rapporteur to devote further attention to the role of human rights defenders in the context of transition.

International Federation for Human Rights League, in a joint statement, said that journalists and media workers were frequently targeted for reporting on human rights violations and asked the Special Rapporteur on the measures to be taken by States to guarantee effective protection of those defenders and to fight against impunity for attacks against them, including by non-State actors.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights said it was alarming that the Chinese authorities had failed to respond to concrete questions by the Special Rapporteur and the Committee against Torture. The Helsinki Foundation remained deeply concerned about the deep mental anguish and torture being inflicted upon the Tibetan people when forced to denounce their spiritual leader.

American Civil Liberties Union asked the Council to address the human rights of prisoners held in solitary confinement in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union called for great global attention and action to ensure the use of solitary confinement was in line with international standards.

Amnesty International asked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders how had the relevant Indian authorities implemented recommendations to ensure prompt, impartial, independent and effective investigations into the killing of defenders? Had the national and state-level human rights commissions taken sufficient measures in order to strengthen their capacity to protect human rights defenders?

Concluding Remarks

JUAN ERNESTO MENDES, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in concluding remarks thanked Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia for their willingness to continue to engage in a constructive dialogue. Commissions of inquiry were one of the ways in which States complied with their obligations under the Convention against Torture and fell squarely within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Although commissions could not deal with criminal procedures, in the cases where torture was a deliberate pattern of behaviour and where the judicial system had failed, they were essential to bringing justice for victims. Concerning truth and reconciliation, Mr. Mendes stressed that torture, defined as an international crime, excluded any possibility for a pardon, amnesty or statue of limitations and had to be addressed as a serious crime. Mr. Mendes highlighted the commissions of inquiry underway in Tunisia and Morocco as examples that the international community should follow as well as the commission in Bahrain. Successful reconciliation commissions had occurred in South Africa, Peru, Argentina and Chile while effective commissions of inquiry had been held in Darfur and El Salvador. It was critical that the victims of torture should be consulted in the composition and setting up of a fact finding commission. The participation of witnesses should be voluntary and if there was a well-founded fear of reprisals, witnesses should not be forced to make statements. The Rapporteur said that commissions strengthened the judicial system by identifying weakness and through gathering evidence which could be provided in cases that could require criminal trials. Next steps would include generating a series of ideas on how to develop applicable standards on commissions of inquiry. Mr. Mendes was concerned that an excessive use of force during public demonstrations or protests could result in torture and had asked for more informaiton from the United States on excessive use of force against “occupying” movements. Solitary confinement or isolation could be legitimate and necessary but in those cases States required safeguards and guarantees so that confinement would not violate international law. There was a need to develop international standards on solitary confinement, such as a prohibition on the use of solitary confinement for minors and people suffering from mental disorders, and a limitation to 15 days.

MARGARET SEKAGGYA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said in concluding remarks that all facts contained in the report concerning the visit to India could be checked in the online version of this document.
On the question on what Special Rapporteurs could do to ensure implementation of their recommendations, Ms. Sekaggya said that as mandate holders, all Special Procedures depended on local implementation by Governments, civil society and the international community. States had asked a number of questions on who could be considered to be a human rights defender; anyone who promoted and protected human rights, and worked on human rights issues in a peaceful manner, was entitled to the protection accorded to human rights defenders, said the Special Rapporteur. This included bloggers, community level human rights workers, and journalists. Journalists should see themselves as human rights defenders when they were reporting on human rights issues.

The issue of non-State actors had been addressed in the 2010 report to the General Assembly in which the Special Rapporteur said that States had the primary responsibility to protect their citizens, and this included against attacks by non-State actors. There was no disagreement on the obligation of human rights defenders to abide by the national law; the challenge was in abiding with laws that were in violation of international norms and were against human rights defenders themselves. States had to open the space to human rights defenders to air their views in a more open manner. Concerning human rights defenders working on land, environment or indigenous issues, Ms. Sekaggya said that the main obstacle to their effective protection was the lack of knowledge about human rights and international standards on the local levels.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record