Human Rights Council Holds Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence

Concludes Interactive Dialogue on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, on the role and responsibilities of non-State actors in transitional justice processes. It also concluded its interactive dialogue on the right to privacy in the digital age.

Fabian Salvioli, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, said it was essential that States and international actors held companies and corporations accountable for their involvement in serious abuses committed during periods of armed conflict or under an authoritarian regime. Truth commissions needed to assess the direct and indirect responsibilities of companies with respect to violations, identify the structures and actors that had enabled and benefited from the violations, and make recommendations for the participation of companies in redressing the damages caused.

Mr. Salvioli also reported on his visits to Croatia and to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which then spoke as countries concerned.

In the ensuing discussion, some speakers said the report provided a useful overview of good practices from different regions and a series of practical recommendations. International humanitarian law, international human rights standards and international criminal law were applicable to non-State armed groups. One speaker said that in contexts where a focus on the promotion of the rule of law, access to justice and sustaining peace was required, transitional justice could connect, empower and transform societies, directly supporting the realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Impunity for crimes was intolerable, and States must make efforts to remove the obstacles placed in the path of the establishment of the facts, and bring the perpetrators to trial. Exercising historic memory was essential in ethical terms to restore social harmony and also to avoid further incidents of conflict.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were European Union, Estonia on behalf of a group of countries, Organization of American States, United Nations Development Programme, Costa Rica on behalf of a group of countries, Liechtenstein, Libya, Colombia, France, Sovereign Order of Malta, Morocco, Ecuador, Ireland, Iraq, Switzerland, Paraguay, Afghanistan, Maldives, UN Women, Lithuania, Venezuela, South Africa, Russian Federation, China, Peru, Armenia, Togo, Chile, Nepal, Cameroon, United States, Argentina, Timor-Leste, Croatia, Bolivia, Belgium, Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Serbia, Malawi, Philippines, Marshall Islands, Cuba, Tanzania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Ukraine.

Also speaking were the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression, Advocates for Human Rights, Alliance Creative Community Project, World Organization against Torture, Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Asociación Civil, International Commission of Jurists, Global Life Savers Inc, Platform for Youth Integration and Volunteerism, Global Appreciation and Skills Training Network, and Partners for Transparency.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue on the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age.

Peggy Hicks, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures, and Right to Development Division at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in concluding remarks that surveillance practices had a disproportionate impact on minority groups. This was a serious issue that required attention. Racial profiling through technology was also a cause for concern for the Office. The Office had called for a moratorium on the sale and distribution of surveillance technologies until sufficient human rights safeguards were in place. The report called for greater transparency from States regarding surveillance practices. This would allow the Office and experts to craft better solutions.

In the discussion, speakers said it was important to ensure human rights and the right to privacy in the digital age, as they were shrinking in many parts of the world. States and businesses should uphold the basic human right that was the right to privacy.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Integrated Youth Empowerment - Common Initiative Group, and Mother of Hope Cameroon Common Initiative Group.

Speaking at the end of the meeting in right of reply were Armenia and Azerbaijan.

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-first regular session can be found here.

The Council will next meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, 19 September, when it will hold an interactive dialogue with the Working Group on arbitrary detention, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on older persons.

Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Right to Privacy

The interactive dialogue on the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.

Discussion

Speakers said it was important to ensure human rights and the right to privacy in the digital age, as they were shrinking in many parts of the world. States and businesses should uphold the basic human right that was the right to privacy.

Concluding Remarks

PEGGY HICKS, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures, and Right to Development Division at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that surveillance practices had a disproportionate impact on minority groups. This was a serious issue that required attention. Racial profiling through technology was also a cause for concern for the Office of the High Commissioner. She appreciated the examples of measures implemented to protect civilians’ privacy. The Office had called for a moratorium on the sale and distribution of surveillance technologies until sufficient human rights safeguards were in place. The report called for greater transparency from States regarding surveillance practices. This would allow the Office and experts to craft better solutions.

States had an obligation to regulate company practices that impacted on human rights. Implementing the recommendations in the report would go a long way to protecting children online. Client-side scanning proposals related to child sexual material could potentially harm the privacy of children and lead to damaging false positives. The Office discouraged such proposals. Those who had been affected by surveillance needed to be notified of those practices and their extent. There were obstacles to legally holding States accountable for surveillance activities. Data protection laws were crucial, and data protection authorities needed to examine social media intelligence-gathering practices. The human rights framework was an important tool that helped States balance concerns for civilians’ privacy and public security. There was a need for sharing information on privacy protection mechanisms.

FEDERICO VILLEGAS, President of the Human Rights Council, said that the Council’s role was to be a hub of progressive human rights mechanisms, and this topic would continue to increase in importance as new technologies were developed.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-recurrence

Reports

The Council has before it the report (A/HRC/51/34) of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence on the role and responsibilities of non-state actors in transitional justice processes , and on his visits to Bosnia and Herzegovina (A/HRC/51/34/Add.2)and Croatia (A/HRC/51/34/Add.1).

Presentation of Reports

FABIAN SALVIOLI, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, said that his thematic report discussed the roles and responsibilities of non-State actors in transitional justice processes. The report focused particularly on the role of business, and non-State armed groups.

It was essential that States and international actors held companies and corporations accountable for their involvement in serious abuses committed during periods of armed conflict or under an authoritarian regime. Truth commissions needed to assess the direct and indirect responsibilities of companies with respect to violations, identify the structures and actors that had enabled and benefited from the violations, and make recommendations for the participation of companies in redressing the damages caused. Companies needed to be held accountable for past abuses, alleged perpetrators needed to be criminally prosecuted, and the rights of victims needed to be guaranteed. The report detailed the regulatory and operational frameworks to address the conduct of non-State armed groups in the design of transitional justice processes.

Truth commissions were an appropriate vehicle for investigating the extent to which non-State armed groups had planned and implemented strategies that deliberately violated international humanitarian and human rights law. Such commissions should recommend how the responsibilities of non-State entities and the State should be addressed. Non-State armed groups and ex-combatants had a legal, political and moral obligation to cooperate with truth-seeking efforts. Commissions needed to also be able to capture the experiences of ex-combatants as culprits and as victims. Ex-combatants who had been directly involved in past violations and leaders needed to be brought to justice. Non-State armed groups needed to contribute to reparation for the harm suffered by their victims. Memorials of conflicts must never lead to re-victimisation of the victims. Complete and truthful accounts of the violence needed to be transmitted to present and future generations to restore the dignity of victims, and to enable society to regain trust and foster reconciliation.

Concerning his visit to Croatia, Mr. Salvioli commended significant efforts made after the war to respond to past abuses, in particular regarding the search for missing persons, the criminal prosecution of war criminals, and institutional and legal reforms aimed at promoting the rule of law and democratic governance. However, he observed shortcomings in reparation for civilian victims and victims of sexual violence; truth-seeking and data-gathering initiatives; memorialisation and education; and in educational and cultural policies aimed at fostering mutual understanding and cultural diversity. There had also been a stagnation in the transitional justice programme in recent years, which threatened the sustainability of the transitional justice process.

On his visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the efforts made in the aftermath of the conflict to address past abuses, in particular regarding the search for missing persons, the criminal prosecution of war criminals, and institutional reforms. However, he also noted the manifest inadequacy of reparation measures, as well as the damage that this had caused to victims for a long time. Memorialisation, the teaching of history, and measures promoting inter-ethnic understanding and combatting discrimination were also inadequate. The progressive deterioration of the socio-political and inter-ethnic environment posed an immediate risk to the sustainability of peace. The authorities and the international community needed to act diligently to prevent a repeat of the violence of the past.

Statements by Countries Concerned

Bosnia and Herzegovina, speaking as a country concerned, said the report included positive steps that had been taken by Bosnia and Herzegovina in the field of truth, justice, reparation and memorialisation, but also contained challenges, assessments and recommendations. The authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina would closely consider the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations in accordance with their constitutional jurisdiction at the State, Entities and Cantonal levels, and regularly inform about the activities undertaken with a view to implement recommendations, as set out in the report. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s commitment to the promotion and protection of all human rights and freedoms, including truth-seeking, was absolute, and it looked forward to continued dialogue with all human rights experts.

Croatia, speaking as a country concerned, said that Croatia, as a co-signatory of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement, could not accept the claim that the “country’s complex institutional design” was a source of polarisation and challenge to peace consolidation - claiming that a peace agreement was an obstacle to peace consolidation was unreasonable. While international law was being blatantly violated in Ukraine and elsewhere, international law and international treaties, especially delicately crafted peace and power-sharing agreements such as the Dayton-Paris Accords, must be protected and upheld. Quite on the contrary to claims in the report, it was the disrespect of the country’s Constitution and unconstitutional electoral manipulations that were the largest source of mistrust and had caused polarisation within the country. Croatia remained committed to peaceful international cooperation.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, some speakers said the report provided a useful overview of good practices from different regions and a series of practical recommendations. International humanitarian law, international human rights standards and international criminal law were applicable to non-State armed groups. It was important that in addition to the individual that the accountability of non-State armed groups could effectively be held organisationally responsible for serious breaches of humanitarian or human rights law. Blanket amnesties for serious breaches of humanitarian or human rights law were unacceptable as this practice further endorsed a culture of impunity, leading to the recurrence of new violations.

In contexts where a focus on the promotion of the rule of law, access to justice and sustaining peace was required, transitional justice could connect, empower and transform societies, directly supporting the realisation of Sustainable Development Goals. Today, the current context of high polarisation called for reflecting on the necessity of more holistic transitional justice processes, one that included the role of non- traditional actors, to secure access to justice and dignity to all people. Some speakers said memorialisation must aim at building a democratic, pluralistic, inclusive and peaceful society where non-State armed groups could engage in dialogue with the State and civil society organizations. Online and archived forums for such interventions, systematically tracked, could help to create a meaningful soul-searching platform as well as effectively encounter disinformation. In addition, all transitional justice processes should be victim-centred and gender-transformative.

Some speakers noted the report contained important legal progress in transitional justice in many countries. Impunity for crimes was intolerable, and States must make efforts to remove the obstacles placed in the path of the establishment of the facts, and bring the perpetrators to trial. States sometimes indirectly committed human rights violations through non-State actors or mercenaries - all States should adopt the Montreux Declaration of 2008 on the use of such entities as private military or security firms by States. It was important to create truth commissions to establish the responsibility of non-State actors in human rights violations, as truth commissions were vital for reforming societies. Exercising historic memory was essential in ethical terms to restore social harmony and also to avoid further incidents of conflict. It was vital to guarantee that victims of abuses of human rights should have access to justice and reparation, and this should be established through international instruments on reparation and justice, which should be established urgently, with victims’ rights at the centre.

Concluding Remarks

FABIAN SALVIOLI, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, said that he was happy with the reaction from States and non-governmental organizations to the report. He welcomed Bosnia and Herzegovina’s impassioned response to the report, and he stood ready and willing to work with the State on addressing the issue. The methodologies used in the report, he said, were transparent and thorough.

Transitional justice systems had to comply with standards on truth and accountability, prosecute those responsible, provide reparations to victims, and reform institutions to guarantee non-recurrence. Memory was also an important pillar of the transitional justice process, as was gender. Reconciliation was about recovery of trust, and accountability was essential in this regard.

States needed to take a victim-centred approach. Victims needed to be active participants in the repatriation process. States had a duty to raise their voice in the defence of victims. The Council needed to take its role further in this regard. Establishing universal jurisdiction was essential to ensure that justice could be brought to victims in States where sufficient judicial systems were not available. Religious actors played a significant role in bringing about reconciliation. There was a need to establish clear frameworks for truth commissions and reparation mechanisms. The Rapporteur offered his technical assistance to States that he had visited, and called on other States to accept his visit requests.

___________

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information 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.