1st week in short
12th Human Rights Council session

The Human Rights Council (the Council) held its 12th regular session between 14 September and 2 October 2009 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. It opened on Monday morning, after several hours delay, and instead of the scheduled update by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mme. Navi Pillay, the Council heard statements by dignitaries from Sri Lanka, the United States and Thailand. The US statement, held by Esther Brimmer, was quite noteworthy, as it reaffirmed the US’s aspiration to see that the Council will fulfil its mandate to deal with human rights violations.

The delay of the first morning was due to the controversy surrounding Honduras and its delegation in the aftermath of the coup d’état in July this year. The legitimacy of the Honduran delegation present at the Council was challenged by other Latin American countries, as they stated that it did not represent the constitutional Honduran Government of President Manuel Zelaya, and should therefore not be allowed to attend the session. The Honduran Ambassador was escorted out of the Council Chamber by security guards after a furious outburst when a point of order by him was dismissed by the Council President who said that non-Member States of the Council could not raise points of order at that time. The President of the Council made a statement later on during the session on the question of participation of the delegation of Honduras in the work of the Human Rights Council. In this statement he stressed that there were indications that the Permanent Representative of Honduras in Geneva is not the accredited representative of President Zelaya’s Government and that there was consensus within the Human Rights Council that they would follow the decision of the General Assembly on the recommendations of the report of the Credentials Committee on the matter.

The update of the High Commissioner on developments in the human rights area was due to the delay held on Tuesday 15 September. In her update she noted that in the past year there has been an expansion of international human rights law through the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the adoption by the Durban Review Conference of an outcome document that would strengthen efforts to address racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. After that positive observation she turned to the current key concerns of ongoing human rights violations in the world. Mme Pillay urged the International Community to insist on full accountability for all human rights violations and to ensure assistance to the victims of such violations. The High Commissioner also stressed that the Council should be prepared to confront all violations, no matter where and when they are taking place, to ensure its credibility.

In the general debate following the update of the High Commissioner many states emphasized the importance of the universality of human rights, e.g. the African Group and the Netherlands. They stressed that states do not have the option pick and choose between the rights of all people; all human rights are universal and indispensable and must be upheld. The importance of ending impunity for human rights violations to reach a sustainable peace was also a recurrent topic.

Civil society had their turn to address the Council following the state delegations statements. WILPF’s statement on item 2 drew the attention to the situation of the Iranian refugees living in Camp Ashraf in Iraq and the severe violations of human and humanitarian rights they have become victims of. WILPF also asked the High Commissioner what steps had been taken in regard to this and urged the Office of the High Commissioner to provide a monitoring presence in the camp due to the threat of further violations by the Iraqi Government.

WILPF addressed the Council twice more during the 1st week under item 3. The second statement was made during the interactive dialogue regarding the report of the Independent Expert (IE) on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Mme Catarina de Albuquerque. In her presentation Mme Albuquerque confirmed her conviction that sanitation is a matter of human rights. She stated that one of the biggest obstacles in tackling the sanitation crisis was the taboo surrounding the issue. This taboo causes 40 % of the world population to suffer because of insufficient access to sanitation. Her report outlined certain state obligations in ensuring access to sanitation and made specific recommendations, e.g. adopting national action plans on sanitation. Separately, she presented the reports of her country visits to Costa Rica and Egypt.

Costa Rica and Egypt both took the opportunity to react to the report on their country visits.

During the interactive dialogue States expressed their support for the focus on access to sanitation and welcomed the Independent Expert’s recommendations. However not all States recognised access to sanitation as a distinct human right and said that they were not obliged to provide everyone with access to a sewerage system or provide individual facilities in every home. Obligations were preferred relating to the creation of an enabling environment, adoption of national action plans, raising public awareness, with special attention to disadvantaged groups and gender equality. When the NGO: s were given the floor WILPF, together with 3 co-signing NGO’s, drew attention to the current imbalance in national expenditure on military resources in relation to efforts made by states to provide clean and safe water in the statement ”Disarm to Hydrate!”. The second statement under item 3 co-signed by WILPF among other NGO’s, addressing the Council was made by a colleague at CETIM regarding the report made by the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights. In this statement it was stressed that the adoption of agreements in various sectors concerning toxic and hazardous products, their transfer or recycling is not sufficient and is generally ineffective. Such agreements are rarely respected in practice and even so they often ignore the human rights dimension. States should in regard to this, take measures to protect the right to life and health of  future generations.