Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

Syria + 2 more

Human Rights Council adopts six resolutions, including on Syria, extends mandates on Belarus and on Eritrea

MORNING
6 July 2018

(excerpts)

Requests Two-Day Global Consultation on Business and Human Rights

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted six resolutions, including on Syria. It extended for one year the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs on Belarus and on Eritrea. It also requested the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises to convene a two-day global consultation on the role of national human rights institutions in facilitating access to remedy for business-related human rights abuses.

The Council extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus for a period of one year, with a vote of 19 in favour, six against and 21 abstentions, and requested the Special Rapporteur to submit a report on the situation of human rights in Belarus to the Council at its forty-first session and to the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session.

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea was extended for a period of one year, without a vote. The Council requested the Special Rapporteur to submit and present a written report at its forty-first session, and to engage in an interactive dialogue with the General Assembly on her report at its seventy-third session.

On business and human rights, the Council requested the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises to convene a two-day global consultation on the role of national human rights institutions in facilitating access to remedy for business-related human rights abuses, open to all stakeholders, and to inform the Council by its forty-fourth session as appropriate.

Turning to the human rights situation in Syria, the Council decided by a vote of 26 in favour, five against and 15 abstentions, to urge all parties to the conflict to comply with their respective obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Council also demanded that all parties refrain from carrying out attacks against the civilian population and civilian objects and that all parties work towards a genuine political transition based on relevant United Nations resolutions.

In a resolution adopted on the matter of peaceful protests, the Council requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a thematic report on new technologies and their impact on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of assemblies, including peaceful protests, and to submit it at its forty-fourth session.

Through the terms of a resolution on civil society space, the Council decided by a vote of 35 in favour, none against and 11 abstentions to request the High Commissioner to prepare a report on progress made in improving civil society engagement with international and regional organizations and to present it to the Human Rights Council at its forty-fourth session.

Speaking in introduction of draft texts were Switzerland, Russian Federation, Ireland, Tunisia, China, Norway, Austria on behalf of the European Union, Djibouti, Somalia, and United Kingdom.

Belarus, Eritrea and Syria took the floor as concerned countries.

Switzerland, Slovakia on behalf of the European Union, Egypt, Pakistan, Panama, Belgium, China, Chile, Ecuador, South Africa, United Kingdom, Australia and Venezuela spoke in general comments.

Australia, Georgia, Switzerland, Germany, Peru, Chile, Tunisia, Belgium, China, United Kingdom, Panama, Egypt, Iraq, Slovakia, Brazil, Senegal, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan, Qatar, Slovakia on behalf of the European Union, Ecuador and Mexico spoke in explanation of the vote before or after the vote.

The Council will next continue taking action on resolutions and decisions before closing its thirty-eighth session.

Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea

In a resolution (A/HRC/38/L.15/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea for a period of one year; requests the Special Rapporteur to submit and present a written report to the Human Rights Council at its forty-first session, and to engage in an interactive dialogue with the General Assembly on her report at its seventy-third session; decides to hold an enhanced interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, at its fortieth session; invites the Special Rapporteur to assess and report on the situation of human rights [in Eritrea] … and, where feasible, to develop benchmarks for progress to improve the human rights situation and a time-bound action plan for their implementation; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its fortieth session on progress made in the cooperation between Eritrea and the Office, and on its impact on the situation of human rights in Eritrea.

Djibouti, introducing draft resolution L.15/Rev.1, on behalf of Somalia and other co-sponsors, said that the main purpose of the resolution was the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for one year. The goal was also to carry out an update of resolution 35/35 to reflect the latest developments. The Special Rapporteur had noted that she was not in a position to announce any improvements, and major violations of human rights were identified, including those mentioned by the Commission on Inquiry. The resolution would give the Council an opportunity of engagement with the Special Rapporteur. Somalia and Djibouti had led negotiations in a transparent manner and all delegations were thanked for their contributions to reach a streamlined, balanced and objective text.

Somalia, also introducing draft resolution L.15/Rev.1, welcomed the update of the Special Rapporteur and supported the extension of the mandate for one year under agenda item 4. Somalia had continuously supported Eritrea’s people to live free from harm and was worried about the current human rights situation. The promotion of economic and social rights was welcomed, but the voices of victims had to be heard.

Slovakia, in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, remained concerned about the situation in Eritrea, in particular with regard to accountability for past violations. The situation required continuous monitoring and therefore, an extension of the mandate for another year was warranted. It urged the Government to work swiftly towards the establishment of an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights office in Eritrea and looked forward to the progress of Eritrea, and its implementation of the recommendations of the upcoming Universal Periodic Review.

Eritrea, speaking as the concerned country, said the Human Rights Council had once again considered a politically motivated resolution against the people of Eritrea. In the past six years, similar resolutions had failed to create any dividend in the promotion of human rights; and this was another unwarranted act that recapped this Council’s failed experience. This year’s resolution came at a time when Eritrea and Ethiopia were engaged in advancing durable peace with an apparent positive implication for the Horn of Africa region. The Council, instead of acting in tune with this positive regional development, had chosen to embolden Djibouti and Somalia to perpetuate their messenger duties for those who had no interest in the peace and security of the region. The adoption of this resolution sent a clear message to the people of Eritrea that the Human Rights Council condoned the vilification of their history and their struggle for regional peace, justice and development. Eritrea rejected the resolution and called on all members of the Council to reject L.15.

Egypt, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the Horn of Africa was witnessing very important developments and that it would have preferred that the draft resolution built upon those events to help the region. Egypt advocated for African solutions for African problems, and for reaching an optimal framework for dealing with political problems and challenges. In that respect, Egypt underscored the importance of rejecting selective resolutions and mandates, which politicized the work of the Council and would not lead to positive engagement and constructive dialogue. Egypt regretted that both Somalia and Djibouti had insisted on submitting the draft resolution. The draft resolution did not enjoy the support of the concerned country, which was an additional reason for Egypt to oppose it.

China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reminded that it consistently advocated that differences should be resolved through dialogue and cooperation. The international community should acknowledge the progress and achievements of Eritrea in the field of human rights. The draft resolution was not in conformity with that. China called on the international community to address the situation in Eritrea in an objective and transparent manner.

The Council then adopted draft resolution L.15/Rev.1 without a vote.

Action on Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic

In a resolution (A/HRC/38/L.20) on the human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, adopted by a vote of 26 in favour, five against and 15 abstentions, the Council deplores the fact that the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic continues in its eighth year with its devastating impact on the civilian population, and urges all parties to the conflict to abstain immediately from any actions that may contribute to the further deterioration of the human rights, security and humanitarian situations; urges all parties to the conflict to comply with their respective obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and demands that all parties, particularly the Syrian authorities and their allies, refrain from carrying out attacks against the civilian population and civilian objects; demands that all parties desist immediately from any use of chemical weapons; reaffirms the importance of establishing appropriate processes and mechanisms to achieve justice, reconciliation, truth and accountability for gross violations and abuses of international law, and reparations and effective remedies for victims; reaffirms that there can only be a political solution to the conflict … and demands that all parties work towards a genuine political transition based on the Geneva communiqué and Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), within the framework of the United Nations-led intra-Syrian talks in Geneva.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (26): Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Ecuador, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.

Against (5): Burundi, China, Cuba, Iraq and Venezuela.

Abstentions (15): Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, South Africa and Tunisia.

United Kingdom, introducing draft resolution L.20, on behalf of a group of States, said they took no pleasure in presenting this resolution once again. It was done not in anger but sorrow. A violent offensive was underway, carried out by the regime and its allies, including Russia, in the south of Syria. Over 330,000 people had fled their homes and all parties were urged to cease the hostilities. The conflict had to end and efforts of Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura were supported in making it happen. The objective of the resolution was to emphasise the need for accountability and to strengthen prospects for peace. The text contained stronger language on core issues such as arbitrary detention, sexual and gender-based violence, internally displaced persons, illicit arms transfers, as well as housing and property laws. The resolution reflected the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. Hope was expressed that the text would be adopted without the calling of a vote and enjoy the consensual support of all in the Council. If a vote was called, all delegations were urged to support the text as drafted.

Russian Federation, introducing amendments L.28, L.29, L.30 and L.31, said it had repeatedly said that the initiative of the so-called Group of Friends of Syria was politicized and had nothing to do with the protection of civilians. The armed groups in Syria were supported by some of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution. The proposed amendments did not aim to make the draft resolution more balanced because that was impossible. The Russian Federation called on all States not to support terrorists and not to sympathize with them. Terrorists in Syria had used chemical weapons: where had they found components to produce those chemical weapons? It was clear that the sponsors of the draft resolution did not want an independent and impartial investigation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Terrorists in Syria were financed from various parties, including private ones. Some regional countries provided them with weapons, equipment and information technology. It was not surprising that the sponsors of the draft resolution were opposed to Russia’s amendments. The last amendment, L.31, addressed the draconian unilateral coercive measures against Syria, which had a heavy impact on civilians. Russia called on all counties to vote in favour of its amendments.

United Kingdom, in a general comment, requested a vote on the amendments.

Slovakia, in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said it was particularly concerned about the recent escalation of violence in the south west of Syria, including air strikes by the regime and its allies, which had already forced more than 330,000 civilians from their homes and destroyed critical infrastructure, including several health facilities. The European Union called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, the respect of the de-escalation agreement, and full humanitarian access to all Syrian people in need. It reiterated that there could be no military solution to the Syrian conflict. Contrary to this, since last year, the Syrian regime, supported by its allies Russia and Iran, had intensified its military operations without regard for civilian casualties. The European Union also expressed deep concern about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Afrin following the Turkish military operation. It reiterated its appreciation for the vital work that the Commission of Inquiry and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism continued to do. It welcomed the strengthened language deploring national legislation such as “Syrian Law Number 10/2018” which would have a significant detrimental impact on the freedom of movement and the right of Syrians displaced by the conflict to return. It therefore called for its repeal. For all these reasons, the European Union would vote in favour of the draft resolution and urged all members of the Human Rights Council to do the same.

Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, expressed its support to amendments presented by Russia, calling on members of the Council to vote for these amendments.

Australia, speaking in a general comment, said that the Commission of Inquiry had documented crimes against humanity and war crimes. Improved focus on sexual and gender based violence in the text was welcomed. The stronger language of the resolution was also welcomed. All sides, particularly the Government, were called on to cease hostilities and engage in a constructive dialogue. All members were urged to oppose the amendments tabled by Russia.

Switzerland, speaking in a general comment, was extremely concerned about all the violations committed by all sides. Switzerland had co-sponsored the resolution and could not support the amendments. However, there were paragraphs weakening the applicability of the resolution. The report of the Commission of Inquiry had documented all violations. Justice had to be provided to all the victims, so it was essential for the Commission of Inquiry, civil society and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to cooperate. The situation in Syria had to be referred to the International Criminal Court. All parties to the conflict were called to re-establish the ceasefire.

Syria, speaking as the concerned country, stated that unrealistic resolutions submitted to the Council every session only aimed to dedicate the Council to serve political interests disconnected from human rights values. The aim was to spread fabricated narratives to hide terrorism supported by sponsor countries. The co-sponsors of the draft resolution continued to level accusations against the Syrian Government and to blackout its cooperation with human rights agencies. Contrary to the allegations in the draft resolution, the Government of Syria had spared no efforts to engage in appeasement initiatives. Syria reaffirmed its commitment to international humanitarian law, and emphasised that persons who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity required accountability. However, those crimes were committed by the coalition led by the United States. It was not surprising that terrorism-sponsoring States had violated the United Nations Charter and international law. The Council was being compelled to consider issues for which it was technically not equipped. The British draft resolution and the language used did not promote the aims of achieving peace in Syria.

Action on Draft Resolution L.20

Ecuador, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed hope that those committing human rights violations, including those who provided weapons or funding, would be brought to justice, including in the International Criminal Court. They were responsible for the death of thousands and the expulsion of millions. The migration crisis was the result of what was happening in Syria. Violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law in Syria included siege tactics, use of civilians as human shields, and starvation, which all constituted crimes against humanity. Hope was expressed that investigations would be carried out soon. Draft resolution L.20 did not reach a balance between condemnation and proposing actions. Still, on the basis of its principles of promoting human rights, Ecuador had decided to vote in favour of the resolution.

Venezuela, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it always condemned selectivity and double standards of initiatives in the Council that provided no benefit to victims. Venezuela called for a true commitment to reach a political solution and dialogue that would establish a lasting peace. Venezuela would vote against the resolution.

Cuba, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated its support for a peaceful solution in Syria with full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. It reiterated its condemnation of the killing of all civilians and acts of terrorism. However, attempts to exploit this tragic situation and fuel geopolitical interest from countries outside of the region were also condemned, as they incited aggression. The draft did not contribute to a just and peaceful solution and Cuba asked for L.20 to be submitted to a vote.

China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, supported the request for a vote on the draft resolution. It had always maintained that a political solution to the Syrian conflict was the only way to promote human rights there. Stressing the need to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, China noted that the draft resolution was not conducive to a political solution and that it would vote against the draft resolution.

Mexico, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed profound concern about the grave situation which Syria continued to go through and would thus vote in favour of the draft resolution. It called on all parties to the conflict to show commitment to civilians and victims of human rights violations. It was also essential to call on all countries to abstain from transferring weapons to any party to the conflict because it would only lead to the intensification of the conflict.

Brazil, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it remained deeply concerned about the rights of Syrian civilians. It appreciated the efforts of the international community to address human rights, while noting the imbalanced nature of the text which was being voted today. It regretted that violations perpetrated by armed groups in Syria ‘s eastern Ghouta had been omitted from the text. It condemned any use of chemical weapons by any party. Impartial investigations were needed by the competent authorities, with clear expertise in the field. Brazil reminded the Human Rights Council that all had the right to enjoy peace. There was no full human rights protection if people could not find peace. In that sense, the Commission of Inquiry recommendation that the international community should refrain from providing support including arms, to any party to the conflict, should be respected.

Iraq, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it had expressed its view against the practice of selectivity in the Human Rights Council, which was a deviation from achieving its work and its objectives. The draft resolution in question had contained ideas that preceded the results of the Commission of Inquiry. In addition, some parties had been described as terrorist parties, contrary to Security Council resolutions. Furthermore, the draft resolution did not take into account recent developments on the ground. It did not refer to international solidarity in terms of the reconstruction of Syria and the provision of a necessary environment for the return of the refugees. Neither did it refer to the financial resources necessitated by the United Nations in order to provide relief for Syria. Furthermore, it did not cover the besieged areas by terrorist groups. The draft resolution was unbalanced and did not aim to reach an objective solution to the crisis. In fact, it only served armed and terrorist groups which would perpetuate the situation. It did not serve the people of Syria. Therefore, Iraq would vote against it, and called on all others to do the same.

Egypt, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it had a principled position regarding item 4 resolutions that did not receive the consent of the country in question. In light of the humanitarian disaster that had entered its seventh year, and in view of the size of the crisis and the numbers involved, Egypt had decided to abstain from voting. The resolution lacked balance and objectivity. Sources for the resolution were unofficial sources, not the official United Nations sources. The draft resolution welcomed investigation mechanisms which were set up by the General Assembly resolution to which Egypt abstained. On those basis, Egypt would abstain.

The Council then adopted the draft resolution L.20, by a vote of 26 in favour, five against and 15 abstentions.

For use of the information media; not an official record