Original Source: http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/F134F7DB398291CFC1257577004769CB?OpenDocument
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON REPORTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF AND ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
12 March 2009
The Human Rights Council this morning heard the presentation of reports by the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief and on human rights defenders and then held an interactive dialogue on them.

Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said that in her annual report, she had chosen to provide a preliminary analysis on discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. Highlighted were some of the recurrent issues encountered, so as to illustrate the adverse impact of discrimination based on religion or belief on the enjoyment of the rights to work, adequate food and housing, health, education and cultural life. It was noted that discrimination based on religion or belief often emanated from deliberate State policies to ostracize certain religious or belief communities and to restrict or deny their access, for example, to health services or public posts. States had the duty to refrain from discriminating against individuals or groups based on religion or belief, including from non-State actors, to ensure that, in practice, every person on their territory enjoyed all human rights without discrimination of any kind. Also, in the past two years she had had the opportunity to undertake country missions to Tajikistan, the United Kingdom, Angola, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, India and Turkmenistan.

Angola, United Kingdom, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Israel, Palestine and India spoke as concerned countries.

Margaret Sekaggya, Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, said today she was presenting her first annual report, as well as her communications report - she had sent a record number, which signalled both an increased awareness for the mandate and work, but also showed that the situation of human rights defenders was far from ideal in many parts of the world, indeed in all regions, and a lot remained to be done in the protection of human rights defenders. With regards to her annual report, she had chosen to provide the Human Rights Council with some preliminary thoughts as to how the Universal Periodic Review could contribute to the improvement of the situation of human rights defenders, as the latter had great expectations from the new process. With regards to country visits, she had undertaken a visit to Togo in the summer of 2008. On 22 February 2008, the previous mandate holder had visited Guatemala as a follow-up to her visit in May 2002, with the purpose of evaluating progress and challenges in implementing the recommendations made six years earlier.

Togo and Guatemala spoke as concerned countries.

In the interactive dialogue, speakers praised the work of the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion and belief, and on human rights defenders. A number of national delegations outlined their programmes and laws to ensure the freedom of religion and belief and to protect human rights defenders and to allow them to work freely. Some said that States had an obligation to act on limits and restrictions to freedom of expression when it came to addressing the phenomenon of advocacy of religious hatred. A number of speakers said the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders was overly focused on the Universal Periodic Review, which was an inter-governmental process. Also recommendations made to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to the treaty bodies on this process were not covered under her mandate. One speaker said that the threat of terrorism and extremism was great in the world today, but in no way should extremism be associated with any specific religions.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Germany, Argentina, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Russian Federation, Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Chile, Egypt, Indonesia, Sweden, Bangladesh, Zambia, Yemen on behalf of the Arab Group, Venezuela, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Norway, New Zealand, Italy, Kazakhstan, Brazil, China, Thailand, Luxembourg and Sri Lanka.

The Council today is holding three back-to-back meetings. When it meets at 3 p.m., it will conclude its interactive dialogue on the freedom of religion or belief and on human rights defenders. It will then hear the presentation of reports of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, and the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide, and hold an interactive dialogue on them.

Reports on Freedom of Religion and on Human Rights Defenders

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir (A/HRC/10/8 and Adds.1-4). In the first part, the Special Rapporteur outlines the activities carried out according to the four pillars of the mandate’s terms of reference since December 2007. She highlights the importance of initiatives in the fields of education, public awareness and interreligious dialogue, as well as State action against advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Applying a gender perspective, the Special Rapporteur also addresses discriminatory and harmful practices against women and refers to several communications sent to Governments and to country reports. In the second part, the Special Rapporteur provides a preliminary analysis of discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. The Special Rapporteur then highlights some of the recurrent issues encountered in the mandate practice to illustrate the adverse impact of discrimination based on religion or belief on the enjoyment of the rights to work, to adequate food and housing, to health, to education and to take part in cultural life. She concludes that discrimination based on religion or belief often emanates from deliberate State policies to ostracize certain religious or belief communities and to restrict or deny their access, for example, to health services, public education or public posts. Among others, the Special Rapporteur recommends that States envisage protective measures in favour of certain population groups, including religious minorities, to provide those who do not have sufficient means with equal access to basic services, such as health care or education. 

A first addendum gives an account of communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur between 1 December 2007 and 30 November 2008, as well as replies received from Governments by 30 January 2009, and observations of the Special Rapporteur, where appropriate, for 25 countries.

Addendum two is the report of the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 20 to 27 January 2008, focusing on a number of issues of concern including the preservation and protection of religious sites; the preferential treatment of Orthodox Judaism; and the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The Special Rapporteur notes that liberty of movement, including access to places of worship, is restricted, in particular for Palestinian Muslims and Christians, through the existing system of permits, visas, checkpoints and the Barrier. While Israel informed the Special Rapporteur that those restrictions were necessary for security reasons, she emphasizes that any measure taken to combat terrorism must comply with States’ obligations under international law. The Special Rapporteur recommends, inter alia, that all parties bind themselves legally to protect the rights of religious minorities and pay particular attention to include comprehensive guarantees for equality and non-discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. Moreover, she recommends that the Government issue non-selective regulations in order to protect and preserve religious sites on a non-discriminatory basis. Lastly, in both the State of Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should be effectively investigated, prosecuted and punished.


Addendum three, which contains findings from the Special Rapporteur’s country visit to India from 3 to 20 March 2008, focuses on concerns about the situation of religious or belief minorities; justice for victims and survivors of communal violence; freedom of religion or belief in Jammu and Kashmir; the negative impact of laws on religious conversion in several states; and implications of religion-based personal laws. She notes that, though a comprehensive legal framework to protect freedom of religion or belief exists, many of her interlocutors remain dissatisfied with its implementation. Organized groups claiming adherence to religious ideologies have unleashed an all-pervasive fear of mob violence in many parts of the country. She stresses the need to prevent political exploitation of communal distinctions effectively and to address adequately advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. In recommendations, the authorities are called on to take quick and effective measures to protect members of religious minorities from any attacks and to step up efforts to prevent communal violence. In addition, the eligibility for affirmative action benefits should be restored to those members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes who have converted to another religion. 

The report of the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Turkmenistan from 4 to 10 September 2008, contained in Addendum four, finds that a high level of tolerance and a climate of religious harmony prevails at the societal level in Turkmenistan. However, although the situation has much improved since 2007, individuals and religious communities, both registered and unregistered, remain under close scrutiny and still face a number of difficulties when manifesting their freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the imposition of legal or policy restrictions by the authorities on registration, places of worship, religious material, religious education and proselytism. These laws and their implementation amount in some instances to undue limitations on freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief, as well as on other rights, such as freedom of association and freedom of expression. In conclusions and recommendations, the Special Rapporteur urges the Government to review the amended law of Turkmenistan on freedom of conscience and religious organizations, in particular, to remove the prohibition on unregistered religious activities and undue restrictions on religious material, education and attire.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya (A/HRC/10/12 and Adds.1-3), which gives an account of the activities of the new Special Rapporteur and the then Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Hina Jilani, during the reporting year, drawing the attention of member States to the 493 communications that have been sent during the past year. It also focuses on the potential of the Council’s Universal Periodic Review mechanism in enhancing the protection of human rights defenders and gives an overview of the strategic value of the review in reviewing and potentially improving the situation of human rights defenders. Finally, the report outlines the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations to the United Nations, States, non-governmental organizations and defenders, regarding the enhancement of the potential of the universal periodic review in improving the situation of human rights defenders.

Addendum one provides summaries of the communications on specific cases addressed to Governments by the Special Representative and the Special Rapporteur, from 11 December 2007 to 10 December 2008, as well as summaries of the responses received from Governments until 10 February 2009 and observations thereon. 

Addendum two, a report on the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Togo from 28 July to 4 August 2008, is available in French only.

Addendum three is the report of the former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, Hina Jilani, on her follow-up mission to Guatemala from 18 to 22 February 2008. While acknowledging some progress since the 2002 visit, particularly in the area of establishing institutions and in self-protection initiatives of defenders, the Special Representative is deeply concerned at the deterioration in the environment in which human rights defenders operate, characterized by endemic impunity for crimes and violations committed against them. Most signally, she finds that the number of attacks against human rights defenders has increased and basically doubled in the last five years, with an average of one attack against defenders every other day and that the same violations have continued to occur. Another form of harassment of defenders that has emerged more prominently is the criminalization of human rights defenders. Among recommendations are that the Government undertake reform of the police, tackling its flaws and weaknesses, including the need to gain the trust of the population, and that it establish a functioning oversight mechanism.

Presentation of Reports on Freedom of Religion and on Human Rights Defenders

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, introducing her reports, said that in the past two years she had had the opportunity to undertake country missions to Tajikistan, the United Kingdom, Angola, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, India and Turkmenistan. In Tajikistan, a large number of measures to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief had been undertaken. However, there were concerns relating to religious minorities, in particular violent attacks on their places of worship and impediments to their registration. Equally of concern was the vulnerable situation of women in Tajik society, which was partly influenced by traditional religious factors or factors attributed to religion. There were also serious concerns relating to a draft law on the freedom of conscience and religious associations. In the United Kingdom, after decades of religiously and politically motivated violence in Northern Ireland, there were now promising initiatives seeking to bridge the sectarian divide. Nonetheless there remained several contentious areas such as inequalities based on religion in the labour markets, housing, education, policing and the criminal justice agencies. Another issue of concern related to the counter-terrorism laws and measures which were largely perceived as targeting the Muslim population, and she had been informed that Muslims were regularly subjected to screening, searches and arrests. During her country visit to Angola, she noted that the right to freedom of religion or belief was enshrined in the Constitution, but there were concerns with regard to national legislation in this area, which discriminated against religious minorities. Also regretted was that Angola had been affected by the global trend of associating Muslims with international terrorism and she was deeply concerned at the abuse and violence against children accused by their families of witchcraft.

Ms. Jahangir drew attention to the fact that her report on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory was based on a mission undertaken in January 2008, and did not refer to the latest developments in Gaza. She had noted that society in these areas was polarized along religious lines. The conflict had had an adverse impact on the right of individuals and communities to worship freely and many Muslims and Christians were impeded from worshipping at some of their most holy places because of an elaborate system of permits, visas and checkpoints and by the barrier. In a follow-up visit to India, she had noted that society there was characterized by religious diversity and a high degree of human rights activism. Secularism was embodied in the Constitution and had had a very positive impact and there was a comprehensive legal framework to protect freedom of religion or belief. However many remained dissatisfied with the implementation of those laws and organized groups claiming roots in religious ideologies had unleashed an all-pervasive fear of mob violence in many parts of the country, for example recently in the state of Orissa. In Turkmenistan, there was a high level of tolerance and she had been impressed by the climate of religious harmony at the societal level. However, over the past years reports had been received of arrests, intimidation, harassment and restrictions on the religious activities of individuals and groups, allegedly perpetrated by the authorities. Although the situation had much improved since 2007, the imposition of restrictions on registration, places of worship, religious material, religious education and proselytism remained matters of concern.

Turning to her annual report, Ms. Jahangir said that she had chosen to provide a preliminary analysis on discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. Highlighted were some of the recurrent issues encountered, so as to illustrate the adverse impact of discrimination based on religion or belief on the enjoyment of the rights to work, adequate food and housing, health, education and cultural life. It was noted that discrimination based on religion or belief often emanated from deliberate State policies to ostracize certain religious or belief communities and to restrict or deny their access, for example, to health services or public posts. States had the duty to refrain from discriminating against individuals or groups based on religion or belief, including from non-State actors, to ensure that, in practice, every person on their territory enjoyed all human rights without discrimination of any kind.

MARGARET SEKAGGYA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said subsequent to the review, rationalisation and improvement of the mandate on the situation of human rights defenders, she had been appointed and took up her function on 1 May 2008. Aware of the accomplishments already achieved by the previous mandate holder and with the intention to build and capitalise on these, she had devoted her first report to the General Assembly to providing an overview of her vision and priorities for the mandate. Today she was presenting her first annual report, as well as her communications report - she had sent a record number, which signalled both an increased awareness for the mandate and work, but also showed that the situation of human rights defenders was far from ideal in many parts of the world, indeed in all regions, and a lot remained to be done in the protection of human rights defenders. 

With regards to her annual report, she had chosen to provide the Human Rights Council with some preliminary thoughts as to how the Universal Periodic Review could contribute to the improvement of the situation of human rights defenders, as the latter had great expectations from the new process. Governments and other stakeholders had been encouraged to report on the situation of human rights defenders in national reports or in contributions submitted for the preparation of reports on which the Universal Periodic Review was based. The mechanism could be a real catalyst to enhance the environment in which human rights defenders operated, and make it a more enabling and accepting one. 

With regards to country visits, she had undertaken a visit to Togo in summer 2008, during which she met with senior Government officials as well as a broad range of human rights defenders. The report presented the general context in which human rights defenders in Togo operated, and further described the legal and institutional framework for the protection and promotion of human rights in Togo and the current challenges faced by human rights defenders in their legitimate activities. The Government should take concrete steps to give legitimacy to human rights defenders, and should also recognise the legitimate work of women human rights defenders. 

On 22 February 2008, the previous mandate holder had visited Guatemala as a follow-up to her visit in May 2002, with the purpose of evaluating progress and challenges in implementing the recommendations made six years earlier. She had noted that the number of attacks against human rights defenders had increased and basically doubled in the last five years, and the inaction of prosecutors in investigating and prosecuting cases was disappointing. However, there were some encouraging initiatives to increase police performance and better protection. 

Statements by Concerned Countries

ARCANJO MARIA DO NASCIMENTO (Angola), speaking as a concerned country, said that Angola had welcomed the visit of Ms. Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, to Angola. However, it regretted that most of the comments submitted by the Angolan Government had not been taken into consideration. Angola reiterated its commitment to continue to work with all Special Procedures and mechanisms as well as all relevant treaty bodies. The Special Rapporteur alleged that the Angolan law on freedom of religion or belief discriminated against religious minorities, imposing requirements for their legal recognition. Angola emphasized that its Constitution treated all religions on an equal basis regardless of the number of followers. All of them were subjected to the same requirements imposed by the relevant legislation. On the other hand, the population that followed a certain religion did not constitute a sociological phenomenon. 

Angola was conscious that the church existed primarily as a religious reality, where social and ethnic differences were overcome and defeated by faith. Therefore, in any religious institution that was formed on the basis of diversity of the people that comprised the nation of Angola, Angola observed an ethnic heterogeneity. Consequently, it was not possible to attribute to the Angolan State any intention or willingness to consider the existence or discrimination of ethnic-religious minorities, as indicated by the Special Rapporteur. Angola regretted the reference made by the Special Rapporteur concerning the prison conditions in Angola due to the fact that this was not part of her mandate to analyze such issues unless that question was linked to religious issues. 

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking as a concerned country, welcomed the positive findings in the Special Rapporteur's report concerning the commitment of the Government to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief in the United Kingdom. Also welcome was the fact that the Special Rapporteur had taken the opportunity to see how measures to promote and protect freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief were being implemented in different parts of the United Kingdom, through visits to various areas. 

The United Kingdom Government and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were firmly committed to upholding the right to freedom of religion, thought or belief, including through legislation and policies to address discrimination, intolerance and violence. In that connection, the forthcoming Equality Bill would seek to further strengthen the law in this area. Moreover, in 2007 the United Kingdom Government had established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a new statutory body that would work to eliminate discrimination, reduce inequality, including inequalities on grounds of religion or belief, and protect human rights. Finally, it was highlighted that blasphemy offences referred to in the Special Rapporteur's report had been abolished in 2008.

JAMSHED KHAMIDOV (Tajikistan), speaking as a concerned country, said the Constitution of Tajikistan provided for freedom of religion and the Government respected this right in practice. Furthermore, it took all relevant measures to adopt a legislation framework providing for citizens' rights in the freedom of religion. The law provided the right of individuals to choose and change their religion and practice their religion of choice, and also protected the right of individuals to proselytise. Although there was no official State religion, the Government recognised two Islamic holy days as State holidays. The separation of Islam from Tajik national culture and the separation of Tajik national culture from Islam were erroneous. The President had announced that 2009 would be the Year of Imama Azam- the founder of the Sunni Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence. This initiative had been launched for the purpose of the people of the country being better aware of the real Islam, getting rid of movements and groups that were alien to Tajik society. 

While an estimated 95 per cent of citizens considered themselves Sunni Muslims, there were a number of different religious groups in the country who enjoyed their equal rights to conduct religious services, ceremonies and rites. The State took all necessary measures to encourage mutual tolerance and respect among citizens, whether or not they professed a religion, and among religious organizations of different denominations as well as their members. As a result of steps undertaken by the Government, the relevant conditions had been established according to which everyone had the right, independently, to determine their attitude to religion, to profess either individually or in community with others any religion or none, and to take part in religious services, ceremonies and rights. Public life in Tajikistan was developing on the basis of political and ideological pluralism - no single ideology, including religious ones, could be established as the State ideology. Religious organizations were separate from the State and could not interfere in the affairs of State. The Government of Tajikistan appreciated the report and assured that all recommendations indicated in it would be taken into account in future. 

ESEN AYDOGDYEV (Turkmenistan), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur for her recommendations after her visit to Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan had submitted comments to the Special Rapporteur and was also preparing its report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. One of the main points in new national activities was to monitor human rights legislation and prepare to implement international legal standards in national law. The new draft of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion and religion was separated from the State. Every person in Turkmenistan freely chose his or her attitude to religion and chose to practice a religion or to practice none. Regarding the refusal to register religious organizations, Turkmenistan said that this could only occur if the organization was not in keeping with the law or if the founders were not capable of exercising their legal capacity. It was however possible to lodge a second request to register. The authorities were also considering improving the registration process in line with the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. 

Turkmenistan would, in collaboration with USAID and other partners, carry out a seminar for stocktaking on religious organizations. A review of compliance with international standards in order to improve legislation would also take place in the first half of this year. Turkmenistan’s new Constitution had established military service for all of Turkmenistan’s men, but the State took measures in order to make it possible to combine religious with military service through special divisions. 

AHARON LESHNO YAAR (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, thanked Ms. Jahangir for her objective and balanced report on her mission to Israel and the Palestinian Territories. While Israel might not fundamentally agree with all of her conclusions, the report complied with the Code of Conduct and fairly addressed the issues under the Special Rapporteur's mandate. As Israel strongly supported the freedom of religion or belief, and took great pride in its religious pluralism, it highly commended the Special Rapporteur's recognition that there was no religious persecution by the State against religious minorities. Israel was proud to be the home to an array of Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze and Baha'i religious communities. In Israel, the Supreme Court had broadly interpreted Israel's basic laws to develop an Israeli-made bill of rights, and in that regard the freedom of religion or belief was seen as being part and parcel of the right to human dignity. And, as noted by the Special Rapporteur, Israel's Supreme Court had, in practice, safeguarded the freedom of religion or belief.

Israel had embraced religious pluralism and opened its doors to hundreds of thousands of Jews, Muslims, Christians and those of other faiths that made pilgrimages each year to holy sites within the Holy Land. In just a few months time, at the invitation of President Peres, Pope Benedict XVI would join the masses in a pilgrimage to Israel. It was asked what further steps the Special Rapporteur would take to secure visits to other countries in the Middle East?

IMAD ZUHAIRI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief, thanked the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Jahangir, for her well-prepared report. The report spoke of several violations made by the occupying power through its constant excavations of historic cites, including in particular the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Those violations and consequent constraints to the freedom of religion and belief were also a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, given that all citizens had a guaranteed right for places of worship. The conclusions of the High Commissioner in her recent report to the Council asked the occupying forces to take off the screws for religious personnel to have access to religious places of worship. The recent violations that Israel caused in the recent events in Gaza were also an example of their continued violation of this right, as many places of worship had been destroyed. 

Palestine stressed that in many cases historic mosques were transformed into either a military site or dance clubs. This reflected further Israel’s measures of total indifference to places of worship and to believers. With regard to access to places of worship as noted in the report of the Special Rapporteur, there was an agreement between Palestinian-Israel authorities which managed this in an agreement on places of worship; however this was no longer valid due to Israel’s invasion of all Palestinian territories. Despite this Palestine remained open to discuss this if Israel ended its occupation. Palestine called on Israel to respect the will of the international community and urged them to reconsider their claim that such acts were legitimatized on the basis of terrorism. Palestine also made this call Israel in this context following the killing of 40 Muslims during prayers in the Jericho mosque a few years ago. Palestine called for an end to the occupation, because it was the most atrocious violation of all human rights.

ACHAMKULANGARE GOPINATHAN (India), speaking as a concerned country, said that for millennia, the Indian subcontinent had provided shelter to countless strands of religious and philosophical thought. Indeed, it had been an integral part of India’s historical traditional to accept and absorb all religions and spiritual experiences as true and valid. India had been the birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, the Sikh and Jain faith, while the great teachings of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism quickly found fertile ground in India centuries ago. Today, every one of the world’s major religions had a home in India, making a nation of unparalleled diversity and plurality. Given India’s civilizational ethos and its historical intercourse with and assimilation of different cultures and religions over the millennia, it was but natural that the leaders of India’s freedom struggle and the founding fathers of independent India adopted a Constitution which made India a secular republic and guaranteed for every citizen of India the freedom of religion and faith as a justiciable and enforceable fundamental right. The commitment at the highest levels of the polity to uphold the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, India’s independent judiciary, a free and vibrant media acted as a bulwark against religious intolerance. 

The Special Rapporteur had acknowledged the remarkable religious diversity in India and the Government’s comprehensive policy for improving the conditions of minorities and its commitment to secularism. In this context, India was surprise at the Special Rapporteur’s reference to institutionalized impunity for those who exploited religion and imposed their religious intolerance on others and impunity of communalized police forces at the State level. India rejected these allegations categorically. 

NAKPA POLO (Togo), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Ms. Sekaggya, Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, for her report on her mission to Togo and wished to complete it by providing additional, up-to-date information on the human rights situation in the country. Since 2005, Togo had been resolutely committed to putting in place a pragmatic policy geared to the promotion and protection of human rights, national reconciliation and the strengthening of the rule of law. It had also engaged in reform of the judiciary to modernize it and to find a solution to intimidation of magistrates and nepotism with regard to judicial promotions and appointments. Following up on the recommendation to create a focal point for human rights defenders, the National Human Rights Commission had operationalized such a body within its structure, and the focal point had already participated in a regional workshop on capacity building for human rights defenders held in Lomé in August 2008. With regard to the recommendation that Togo integrate the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in its domestic legislation, the Human Rights Commission had suggested instead that Togo pursue a regional initiative in that area.

On the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is guaranteed by legislation and the Constitution, Togo noted a number of recent modifications to legislation in 2000, 2002 and 2004, which completely decriminalized press offences. Regarding concerns about women human rights defenders, it was noted that it was sociological and cultural factors that had created obstacles to women human rights defenders in carrying out their daily tasks. To address that situation, the Government intended to intensify its sensitization, information, education and communication campaigns aimed at transforming mindsets and in that way to overcome the prejudices and taboos that surrounded women in Togolese society. Finally, concerned to effectively prevent torture, in July 2008 the Government had adopted the law authorizing the ratification of the United Nations Convention against Torture.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking as a concerned country on the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, thanked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders for her report which evaluated the progress and challenges made from the first visit in 2001 to the country. Guatemala listened with careful attention and reflected on the problems noted on the ground in the country as well as the achievements made by institutions. Following the Special Rapporteur’s visit with regard to the recommended policies on human rights defenders, the Government had been working since 2006 on a list of new mechanisms to promote human rights for human rights defenders, and in particular to those in vulnerable sectors.

The Government aimed to combat impunity and threats against different categories of human rights defenders. Guatemala recently created a coordinating unit for measures to protect human rights defenders who needed provisional and security measures. In addition, a framework law on the legal standards, and coordinating activities on State intelligence, among other sectors had been established in compliance with international obligations. Training for all law enforcement officials was also underway. However, there continued to be threats against human rights defenders and the Government was well aware of this, and said that those cases needed to be addressed case by case. Security and justice were a priority for the Government of Guatemala, which was also linked to other national efforts geared towards fighting impunity. Guatemala expressed the fact that they welcomed the helpful recommendations found in the report and the Government would continue work to implement them.

Interactive Dialogue on Reports on Freedom of Religion or Belief and on Human Rights Defenders

GEORG KLUSSMANN (Germany) said that Germany greatly appreciated all the work done since the establishment of the mandate in 2000 of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and warmly welcomed her personal commitment to the cause of human rights defenders. Germany supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur through national voluntary contribution to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A workshop on human rights defenders was hosted by the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development last October in Berlin. The very fruitful discussion on how the situation of human rights defenders could be improved was attended by a representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights whose expertise added to the exchange of ideas. 

Germany commended the Special Rapporteur on her efforts to mainstream the issue of the protection of and the support for human rights defenders, for example by urging States under review in the Universal Periodic Review process to include information on the implementation of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in their national reports. Germany asked the Special Rapporteur to further elaborate on the idea of an early-warning mechanism for the protection of defenders with a view to anticipating systematic threats against them. How would the Special Rapporteur imagine such an early warning system to work on the ground if in many cases defenders were threatened by the State?


GUSTAVO RUTILO (Argentina) thanked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders for her report, and wished to make some comments regarding references to Argentina with a view to completing and correcting information therein. First, Argentina reiterated its commitment to the system for the promotion and protection of human rights. It cooperated in an open, decided and regular manner with all the Special Procedures. Indeed, the Government had provided the information requested by the Special Rapporteur on a number of occasions over the course of 2008, and it would have been preferable if the report had looked at the evolution of the investigations undertaken with regard to cases related to human rights defenders. In addition, the report made reference to situations of violence against human rights defenders, including murders, and referenced Argentina within a general group of countries without specifying in which of those countries lesser or greater offences were taking place. In future it would be desirable to avoid such groupings and generalizations. 

Argentina had attached special priority to its work to protect human rights defenders and had taken firm measures to address that challenge. In particular, they were implementing federal witness protection programmes, in particular to safeguard those who were contributing to clarifying cases of human rights violations.

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said a non discriminatory approach, based on respect and tolerance for others’ views, beliefs and religious sensitivities, was key to preserve the multicultural fabric of the international order. The Special Rapporteur, Ms. Jehangir’s proposal to make the best use of education and inter and intra religious dialogue needed serious consideration to promote respect for religious diversity in pluralistic societies and in turn ensure freedom of religion. The Organization of the Islamic Conference agreed with the Special Rapporteur that States had an obligation to act on limits and restrictions to freedom of expression when it came to addressing the phenomenon of advocacy of religious hatred. Pakistan also supported her views that teaching about religion and beliefs must be provided in ways that were fair, accurate and based on sound scholarship.

On human rights defenders, the Organization of the Islamic Conference took note of the Special Rapporteur Ms. Sekagaya’s priorities in fulfilling her mandate. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, however, considered that her present report was overly focused on the Universal Periodic Review which was an inter-governmental process and had been developed after protracted negotiations. Recommendations made to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the treaty bodies on this process, whom all had their well defined parameters, were also not covered under her mandate.

Mr. KASHEV (Russian Federation) thanked both Special Rapporteurs for their reports. Regarding the report by the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief, the Russian Federation said that this was a document that was a good example of a balanced approach by a Special Rapporteur. There were very practical recommendations on how to approach questions related to the freedom of religion. Today in the world, the threat to terrorism and extremism was great. However, the Russian Federation stressed that in no way should extremism be associated with any specific religions. Further, international cooperation was a tool to prevent discrimination related to the freedom of religion. Concerning the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, the Russian Federation said that the report had very little to do with the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. The Russian Federation was of the view that all States should undergo the Universal Periodic Review on an equal footing. It recommended that the Special Rapporteur pay close attention to the responsibility for the actions of the human rights defenders. The misuse of the status of human rights defenders had still not been studied. 

JANA REZNA (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Special Rapporteurs for their reports. Turning to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the European Union, noting that discriminatory practices by Governments were not always intentional and that fair, accurate and sound training about religions and beliefs was a means to enhance respect for the right to freedom of religion or belief, how could that concept be used in the training of Government officials responsible for the implementation of legislation and policies in the area of economic, social and cultural rights? What role did Governments have in the definition of religion or belief, especially when such disputes had consequences for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. In that context, the European Union raised the fate of the seven Baha'i leaders in Iran detained by the authorities for more than eight months without due process or access to legal representation. Had she followed the situation of those detainees and could she suggest measures to be taken in that regard? Finally, noting that some countries had parallel systems of secular and religious courts, what were her recommendations on how to adjudicate the authority of such courts over disputes related to access to employment, housing or health?

Turning to the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, she had underlined in her report that the long-term success of the Universal Periodic Review process would depend on the extent to which civil society and communities of human rights defenders had their concerns addressed by through that process. In that regard, had she mentioned the decision of Sri Lanka to reject a Universal Periodic Review recommendation referring to the need to avoid unduly constraining civil society? How did she believe the Council should address the problem of restrictive NGO registration laws?

RODRIGO DONOSO (Chile) welcomed the reports by both Special Rapporteurs. As a country, Chile defended freedom of religion or belief, to have a religion or belief, change it or not have one at all. Chile agreed with the report on freedom of religion and belief. The Special Rapporteur’s recommendation to infuse inter and intra religious dialogue in education spheres was welcomed. Chile asked, what was the best way to include the gender perspective in this dialogue? Chile also welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s visit which was scheduled for 2010.

On the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Chile said that they agreed that the Universal Periodic Review was an effective mechanism for civil society to establish real dialogue with human rights defenders. Chile encouraged the inclusion of human rights defenders into this process. The role the human rights defenders’ work was to ensure that fundamental rights and freedoms were protected and this must be commended and recognized on behalf of the international community as this was a serious issue all over the world. Human rights defenders suffered difficulties and threats while defending the rights of women, minorities and others due to their sexual orientation, risking theirs lives in some cases. Chile asked the Special Rapporteurs what were the best practices and measures available to protect human rights defenders in their vital work?

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and her addendum regarding her visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, this report gave the impression that Palestine and Israel were happy neighbours, and lived peacefully side-by-side; it ignored the fact that Israel was an occupying power. The report said nothing about this fact, and addressed the Palestinian Authority as though it was an independent State. Every human being's inherent right to life made it incumbent on him or her to fight terrorism. The Special Rapporteur had vindicated Israel from everything it was doing, and described everything the Palestinians were doing as terrorism. Did the Special Rapporteur have a definition of terrorism, and was there a distinction between terrorism and a people's legitimate right to resist occupation, Egypt asked. 

Did the Special Rapporteur have any comment on anything Israel was doing to the Palestinians, and whether this had any relation to State terrorism, Egypt asked. When the Special Rapporteur merely referred to the Israeli aggression as a development, then this raised many questions. Did the Special Rapporteur believe that Israel's denial of Palestinians right to self-determination was impeding their freedom of religion or not, and what was the impact of the occupation on their religious freedoms; and did she genuinely believe that the way she was conducting her mandate was relevant to the issue that was being discussed or not? 

MOHAMMED ATHO MUDZHAR (Indonesia) said with regard to the report on freedom of religion or belief, Indonesia's Constitution stipulated that the State guaranteed everyone the freedom of worship, each according to his or her own religion or belief. In 1999, that constitutional guarantee had been elaborated by Law No. 39 on Human Rights and, in 2000, it had been reinforced by an amendment to the Constitution, which introduced articles on religious freedom and the obligation to respect others' human rights. In 2005 a further step had been taken through the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Moreover, it had become clear that interfaith dialogue remained the best way forward. While national efforts focusing on cohesive and holistic strategies for promoting that fundamental freedom were essential, Indonesia believed in the importance of both inter- and intra-religious dialogue between international and regional stakeholders, undertaken in a spirit of cooperation and tolerance.


With regard to the report on human rights defenders, Indonesia said that the establishment of some 440 implementing committees of national action plans on human rights at the provincial and city levels throughout the country was a clear illustration of Indonesia's full commitment to the principle that human rights defenders were a national mechanism. Indonesia was aware that its efforts to fully protect human rights defenders still needed to be further improved and believed that its stronger and vibrant democracy was its primary asset in that regard.

LINA VAN DER WEYDEN (Sweden) thanked the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders for her report. The situation of human rights defenders remained a crucial element in their efforts to improve the human rights situation around the world. In her predecessor's report, submitted last year, it had been underlined that the greatest obstacle to her work had been a lack of State cooperation, and in the current report it was noted that there was still a long list of countries with pending requests for country visits. Given that some of the requests were long-standing and given the serious human rights situations in, for example, Sri Lanka, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe, Sweden would like to know if there was anything the Council could do to help ensure that those country visits could take place as foreseen?

The report mentioned that some recommendations in the Universal Periodic Review dealing with human rights defenders had not been supported by the State under review. Sweden noted that in the case of Sri Lanka that the Special Rapporteur had requested a country visit and that some other special mandate holders had been able to visit Sri Lanka. Sweden asked what did the Special Rapporteur believed lay behind the lack of cooperation in her specific area? Another country that had cooperated with other special mechanisms was the Democratic Republic of Congo. Sweden regretted that the request by the Special Rapporteur’s mandate which had been submitted three times had not been granted. 

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said with regards to the report on human rights defenders, most of the report was devoted to the Universal Periodic Review and the status, role and involvement of human rights defenders. Bangladesh was not happy with this, and viewed this as too premature. Looking at a mechanism as broad as the Review through the narrow prism of human rights defenders could not provide a true picture of the conduct of the Review. The concerns expressed as to the protection of human rights defenders were appreciated. Most of the countries that had undergone the Review had followed the modalities and involved civil society accordingly. 

The Universal Periodic Review process was proceeding well, and there was a happy environment of mutual respect, cooperation and understanding. Evidently, the modalities that had been adopted by consensus were working quite well. There was no need for more guidelines from any quarter. The Special Rapporteur had mentioned in a number of places implementation of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and had also referred to monitoring the Declaration. Declarations were not legally binding, and there could not be a monitoring entity nor implementation arm. It would be better for the Special Rapporteur to focus her work on the protection of human rights defenders, not on what action or activities human rights defenders would undertake in the promotion of human rights. 

DIANA SICHALWE (Zambia) said, with regard to the report on human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur had alleged that Zambia was among those African States that restricted the freedom of expression of human rights defenders, and that women human rights defenders were specifically targeted and that there was an inefficient institutional infrastructure for human rights defenders in Zambia. Zambia wished to put on record that the Constitution as the supreme law of the land guaranteed freedom of expression, which was justiciable. It further provided for redress for those who felt that their rights had been, were being or were likely to be infringed. Human rights defenders in Zambia were free to express themselves and usually did so through the institution of non-governmental organizations which were instrumental in fighting for the rights of people in Zambia.

Zambia agreed with the Special Rapporteur's conclusion that the Universal Periodic Review process had the potential to provide an important tool for civil society and human rights defenders in particular, to trigger a genuine dialogue with their respective Governments before, throughout and after the review. That had been Zambia's experience during the preparation of its national report to the Universal Periodic Review.

IBRAHIM SAIED MOHAMED AL-ADOOFI (Yemen), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, thanked the Special Rapporteurs for their reports. In particular the Arab Group appreciated the report of Independent Expert, Ms. McDougal on minorities. Like many people in the world the minorities did not enjoy all the political, economic and social rights they had a right to, in this regard the Arab Group was committed to working towards guaranteeing them their rights. The Arab minority, be they Muslims or Christians, faced discriminatory policies against them. The Arab Group was following this issue, and on the enjoyment of their identity and culture. In the Special Rapporteur’s report on freedom of religion or belief, paragraph 30 of the report noted the restrictions imposed on Palestinians to places of worships, and therefore the Arab Group said there was a responsibility on behalf of the Israeli Government to ensure the right to life of its citizens and required the authorities to take effective measures, rather than taking the measures they had to combat terrorism. The Arab Group in this context asked for further explanations as to why there was this obvious bias which espoused the Israeli viewpoint. The Arab Group also asked for the Special Rapporteur’s view on the excavations taking place in historic and religious places and why had they not be referred to in her report?

FRANK VALDERRAMA GARCIA (Venezuela) said with regards to the report on freedom of religion or belief, Venezuela's Constitution guaranteed the freedom of religion and the right for all to express their belief in public and in private, and Venezuela had never been a country where there had been barriers to this, not even invisible ones. Intolerant behaviour in this regard could lead to a disturbance of social peace - what measures should be taken when the perpetrators were not State players, and were exploiting religion for political persons, and how should this be addressed? Venezuela noted that the report could lead to stigmatisation of certain regions, with very general references which did not take into account that violations could take place throughout the world. Venezuela was working, in a spirit of mutual cooperation, to ensure that the Special Rapporteur could visit the country soon - was she planning to ask specific industrialised countries whether she could visit them, and if so what obstacles had been placed in her path, and what challenges existed in those countries? 

NICOLAS CHAMOREL (Switzerland) said that Switzerland, together with Morocco, was active in the domain of human rights education and training. Switzerland supported the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief's recommendation aimed at the effective training of government officials regarding discrimination; and that judges, civil servants, police and health service providers should be able to recognize, prevent and combat all forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on religious affiliation.

Religious education could also contribute to the fight against discrimination. In that regard, Switzerland had noted the Special Rapporteur's participation in the elaboration of the Toledo Directives on the teaching of religions in public schools developed within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Switzerland believed that knowledge about religions and beliefs was an essential way to reinforce freedom of religion, to promote tolerance and contribute to social cohesion. Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur if she foresaw ways to translate such regional initiatives into universal guidelines? With reference to a recommendation to promote interreligious dialogue, how could one encourage such dialogue on controversial subjects without adversely impacting on religious harmony?

RAJEH FOUAD (Saudi Arabia) said on freedom of religion or belief, the Government of Saudi Arabia had scrutinized the report of the Special Rapporteur, and expressed surprise at the reference made to a specific case in Saudi Arabia, in paragraph 184 of her report, which stated that there was no reply from the competent authorities in Saudi Arabia regarding that specific case; however Saudi Arabia said that this was untrue, and Saudi Arabia had in fact sent a reply in the form of a memorandum dated 15 September 2008. Saudi Arabia also in fact had a copy of this reply which would be transmitted to the Special Rapporteur immediately. Saudi Arabia regretted that the reply was not included in the report before being published as it was transmitted before the report had been published, and asked if this error could be fixed.

IDUN TUEDT (Norway) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Norway paid tribute to the significant work of the Special Rapporteur since taking up her mandate. She had conducted a wide range of activities, presented a comprehensive vision, and consulted with a broad range of stakeholders, including Governments, regional bodies, and civil society. Since the adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders over ten years ago there had been an increased focus on the important role of human rights defenders and their often precarious situation. Unfortunately, this had not yet resulted in secure and satisfactory conditions - in all parts of the world, human rights defenders faced threats, attacks and persecution. 

Consequently, it was appreciated by Norway that the report took a global view and demonstrated the potential of the Universal Periodic Review as a mechanism for enhancing the protection of human rights defenders worldwide. Had the Special Rapporteur identified the need for a stronger focus on defenders working on specific issues and in specific areas; and how could human rights defenders best be included in the follow-up of Universal Periodic Review recommendations on a national level, and were there any best practices in this regard, Norway asked. 

HUEY CASSELS (New Zealand) recognized and supported the important work that the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and her predecessor had undertaken in respect of analysing the relationship between freedom of religion or belief and gender. New Zealand found that the presentation on the application of non-discrimination obligations to economic, social and cultural rights in respect of the right to freedom of religion or belief was useful and interesting, and agreed that States had to ensure that there was no discrimination in the workplace based on religion or belief. In that regard, New Zealand would be interested to hear the Special Rapporteur's view on the relationship between the freedom not to disclose one's religion or belief in the workplace and her suggestion that in some cases there might be a need for positive discrimination or affirmative action to eliminate any existing discrimination based on religion or belief in the workplace.
With regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, New Zealand agreed that recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review should not be looked at in isolation, but as part of a broader assessment made by other human rights mechanisms. In respect of the recommendation that States' recommendations during the Universal Periodic Review should be specific and detailed, could the Special Rapporteur give some specific examples of the types of recommendations that she would envisage as meeting that objective?

NICO FRANDI (Italy) wished to reiterate Italy’s firm support to the mandate held by the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Jahangir. Italy attached the utmost importance to the work she had accomplished over this year on the issue of freedom of religion or belief. Italy was particularly concerned about the worrying phenomenon of violence, persecution and discrimination, affecting in particular religious minorities in several areas of the world, including the destruction of worship places. Italy asked the Special Rapporteur if she could expand on this worrying trend, which caused multiple forms of discrimination, and more specifically on how this form of discrimination affected the enjoyment of the right to health?

Italy attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review process, not only as a successful exercise of the Council, but also as an effective mechanism to the promotion and protection human rights worldwide. Considering the four Universal Periodic Review sessions already run by the Council, what was the Special Rapporteur’s assessment and evaluation of the questions posed to and the replies given by the States under review, on the subject of freedom of religion or belief? Furthermore, Italy asked if the Special Rapporteur envisaged a specific follow-up activity to be undertaken in the framework of her mandate?

ABZAL SAPARBEKULY (Kazakhstan) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had been carefully studied, and the Special Rapporteur's contributions to the Durban Review Conference were welcome. Her appeal for dialogue among religions as part of a common strategy to achieve harmony and peace was supported. There should be rapid reaction in cases of violation of the freedom of religion or belief. Kazakhstan had always been a tolerant State - its Constitution forbade all forms of discrimination, including on the basis of religion or belief. The number of places of worship in the country increased every year, and there was a wide range of faiths. 

What were the views and experiences of the Special Rapporteur with regards to new religious movements, when it came to their social, political and ideological role, as this was unclear, Kazakhstan asked. At the same time, there was a spread of cults and sects of a mystical nature, and this confused citizens of the country, who were unused to these religious extremists and false missionaries. 

NATHANAEL DE SOUZA E SILVA (Brazil) welcomed the approach adopted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to address State action against any form of advocacy or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. In choosing that approach, the Special Rapporteur appropriately avoided debates on issues such as defamation of religions. According to the former Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, Doudou Diene, the question of defamation of religions should be addressed under a strictly legal approach that gave room to the fight against incitement to hatred based, inter alia, on faith. In the view of the current racism mandate holder, Guithu Muigai, addressing the correlation between defamation of religion and incitement to hatred and intolerance would require a case-by-case evaluation. The line between defamation and incitement to hatred would be drawn by the capacity of the State to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of a particular group at large. Ms. Jahangir's approach, as well as that of some of her colleagues, would make it possible to move forward in a more constructive and cooperative fashion. Brazil also welcomed the preliminary analysis provided on discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.

Regarding the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Brazil shared the views expressed with regard to the Universal Periodic Review and had always advocated that the Review should involve the active participation of human rights organizations. Brazil's national report to the Universal Periodic Review had been subject to consultations with non-governmental organizations throughout the preparatory process, which had culminated in a public hearing at the Federal Senate in February 2008. For its part, Brazil was willing to include information about the situation of human rights defenders and about the implementation of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in future submissions to the Universal Periodic Review.

DONG SONG (China) thanked the Special Rapporteurs for the submission of their reports and appreciated the work they conducted. On freedom of religion or belief, China said that the Government respected this and believed that diversity and civilization pushed ahead progress all over the world in the area of human rights. China welcomed the recommendation made by the Special Rapporteur on inter and intra religious dialogue. The Government of China considered it a necessity to have dialogue among religions which was necessary for further understanding at the international level.

China also welcomed the seminar held by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 8 October 2008, which the Special Rapporteur attended, and stated that States had a responsibility to advocate against incitement of hatred and encourage dialogue and religious diversity. China asked what did she plan for further in this area? With regard to the recommendation made to further use the Universal Periodic Review to include human rights defenders in the dialogue, China considered that all the views provided should be considered. The views between Governments and individuals were just as important as was the relationship between rights and obligations.

VIJAVAT ISARABHAKDI (Thailand) said the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders was to be thanked for her extensive work with Governments and other related parties. Thailand greatly valued the efforts of human rights defenders who had been dedicating their work to protect the rights of all people worldwide, including in Thailand. While Thailand agreed with the Special Rapporteur that the Universal Periodic Review had the potential to provide an important tool for all stakeholders to further protect and promote human rights, including the protection of human rights defenders, the Universal Periodic Review should be seen more as a holistic process whereby all human rights issues in general could be brought up and discussed. 

Furthermore, the Review should not be viewed as the only avenue to protect and promote human rights and the rights of human rights defenders - rather other human rights mechanisms should also be considered and explored to their maximum potential, such as the treaty bodies and the Special Procedures. Thailand supported the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, and remained committed to the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. 

CHRISTINE GOY (Luxembourg) appreciated the significant efforts undertaken by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief in keeping with the four pillars of her mandate. The illustrations that she included in her report regarding the negative impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights with regard to discrimination based on religion was striking. Of particular note had been the mention of violations of the right to freedom of religion with regard to private property and the right to housing of the Baha'i community in Iran. Their houses, their farms and their businesses continued to be confiscated, and their belongings sold at auction. Luxembourg asked for more information about the situation of that community with regard to rights to work, education and free movement. Moreover, had she noted any improvement in their situation thanks to her efforts and did she envisage a follow-up visit in the near future?

RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka) thanked the Special Rapporteurs who spoke this morning for their reports on two important areas. With regard to the report on the situation of human rights defenders, Sri Lanka deplored the confusion that took away from the very real dangers that could threaten such defenders. Though the Special Rapporteur did not refer to Sri Lanka in her presentation, the report itself mentioned Sri Lanka several times, and one of those instances was also the subject of an intervention by the Czech Republic. Significantly, this was reference that seemed to Sri Lanka as irresponsible, since it seemed to privilege irresponsibility and a lack of transparency that Sri Lanka found especially worrying in the context of inadequate safeguards against the funding of terrorism and terrorist related activities.

Sri Lanka said that physical threats to anyone, including defenders of human rights, were to be deplored, and Sri Lanka believed the Special Rapporteur was right to draw the attention of the Council to possible lapses in this regard.