Advance Unedited Version Distr. LIMITED L.10 October 2009 Original: Lang.ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Twelfth session Agenda item 1 Organizational and procedural matters 14 September – 2 October 2009 Draft report of the human rights council on its Twelfth session Vice-President and Rapporteur: Mr. Hisham Badr (Egypt) CONTENTS Chapter Paragraph Page Part One: Resolutions and decisions I. Resolutions adopted by the Council at its twelfth session II. Decisions adopted by the Council at its twelfth session Part Two: Summary of proceedings I. Organizational and procedural matters 7 A. Opening and duration of the session 1-5 B. Attendance 6-7 C. Agenda and programme of work of the session 8 D. Organization of work 9-23 E. Meetings and documentation 24-32 F. Visits 33-35 G. Selection and appointment of mandate-holders 36-37 H. Consideration and action on draft proposals 38-42 I. Adoption of the report of the session 43-46 II. Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner, the Secretary-General 12 A. Update by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 47-49 B. Reports of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General 50-54 C. Consideration and action on draft proposals 55-57 III. Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development 15 CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Paragraph Page A. Representative of the Secretary General for children and armed conflict 58-59 B. Interactive dialogue with special procedures 60-86 C. Panel 87-92 D. Follow-up to special sessions 93-97 E. General debate on agenda item 3 98-99 F. Consideration and action on draft proposals 100-183 IV. Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention 36 A. General debate on agenda item 4 184-186 B. Consideration and action on draft proposals 187-201 V. Human rights bodies and mechanisms 39 A. Complaint Procedure 202-203 B. Expert Mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples 204 C. General debate on agenda item 5 205 D. Consideration and action on draft proposals 206-209 VI. Universal Periodic Review 41 A. Consideration of the universal periodic review outcomes ….. 213-664 B. General debate on agenda item 6 665 C. Consideration and action on draft proposals VII. Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories 125 A. Follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution S-9/2…….. 666-670 B. General debate on agenda item 7 671 CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Paragraph Page C. Consideration and action on draft proposals 672-673 VIII. Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 128 A. Annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective in the work of the Council 674-679 B. General debate on agenda item 8 680-681 C. Consideration and action on draft proposals 682-690 IX. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action 132 A. Interactive dialogue with special procedures 691-694 B. General debate on agenda item 9 695 X. Technical assistance and capacity-building 134 A. Interactive dialogue with special procedures 696-703 B. General debate on agenda item 10 704 C. Consideration and action on draft proposals 705-713 Annexes I. Attendance II. Agenda III. Administrative and programme budget implications of Council resolutions adopted at the twelfth session IV. List of documents issued for the twelfth session of the Council V. List of special procedures mandate-holders appointed by the Council at the twelfth session Order of the review for the seventh, eighth and ninth sessions of the universal periodic review List of troika members for the sixth, seventh and eighth sessions of the universal periodic review Part One: Resolutions and decisions [To be added in the final report] Part Two: Summary of proceedings I. Organizational and procedural matters A. Opening and duration of the session The Human Rights Council held its twelfth session at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 14 September to 2 October 2009. The President of the Human Rights Council opened the session. At the 31st, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Uruguay made a statement in relation to the peoples of Indonesia and Philippines who were affected by the natural catastrophe that had struck those countries, as well as to recent sports events. At the same meeting, the President also made a statement extending his sympathy and solidarity to the people affected in that region. In accordance with rule 8 (b) of the rules of procedure of the Council, as contained in part VII of the annex to Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007, the organizational meeting of the twelfth session was held on 28 August 2009. The twelfth session consisted of 32 meetings over 14 days (see paragraph 24 below). B. Attendance The session was attended by representatives of States members of the Council, observer States of the Council, observers for non-member States of the United Nations and other observers, as well as observers for United Nations entities, specialized agencies and related organizations, intergovernmental organizations and other entities, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations (see annex I). At the 3rd meeting, on 15 September 2009, the President, responding to points of order raised by the delegations of Brazil and Argentina, indicated that he had received a letter in the afternoon of the previous day, dated 20 August 2009, indicating that the Permanent Representative of Honduras in Geneva was not the accredited representative of President Zelaya’s Government. The President further stated that he had informed and consulted parties concerned, as well as the Bureau and regional groups, and appropriate action was taken on the issue and that his understanding was that there was a consensus within the Council that the Council will follow the decision of the General Assembly on the recommendations of the report of the Credentials Committee. Agenda and programme of work of the session At the 3rd meeting, on 15 September 2009, the Council adopted the agenda and programme of work of the twelfth session (see annex II). Organization of work At the 3rd meeting, on 15 September 2009, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on the update by the High Commissioner of the activities of her office, which would be 3 minutes for member States and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 6th meeting, on 16 September, the President outlined the modalities for the interactive dialogue with mandate-holders of special procedures under agenda item 3, which would be as follows: 10 minutes for the presentation by the mandate-holder of the main report, with a further 2 minutes to present each additional report, 5 minutes for concerned countries, if any, and States members of the Council, 3 minutes for statements by observer States of the Council and other observers, including United Nations entities, specialized agencies and related organizations, intergovernmental organizations and other entities, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, and 5 minutes for concluding remarks by the mandate-holder. At the 7th meeting, on 17 September, the President outlined the modalities for the panel discussion on the matter of the human rights of migrants in detention centres, which would be 7 minutes for panellists, 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 10th meeting, on 18 September, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on reports of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary-General and the Joint Inspection Unit, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 11th meeting, on 22 September, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on agenda item 3, for observer States and other observers, which would be 2 minutes. At the 11th meeting, on 22 September, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on agenda item 4, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 14th meeting, on 23 September, the President outlined the modalities for the consideration of the outcomes of universal periodic review under agenda item 6, which would be that the State concerned would have up to 20 minutes to present its views; States members of the Council, observer States and United Nations agencies would have up to 20 minutes to express their views on the outcome of the review and whenever it is necessary and in order to accommodate the maximum number of speakers, 2 minutes would be allocated to States members and observer States; stakeholders will have up to 20 minutes to make general comments on the outcome of the review, during which 2 minutes would be given to each speaker. At the 20th meeting, on 25 September, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on agenda item 6, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 21st meeting, on 28 September, the President outlined the modalities for the annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective in the work of the Council, which would be 7 minutes for panellists, 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 22nd meeting, on 28 September, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on agenda item 5, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 23rd meeting, on 29 September, the President outlined the modalities for the interactive dialogue with the members of the fact-finding mission on the Gaza Conflict under agenda item 7, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 24th meeting, on 29 September, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on agenda item 7, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 25th meeting, on 30 September, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on agenda item 8, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 27th meeting, on 30 September, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on agenda item 9, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. At the 29th meeting, on 1 October, the President outlined the modalities for the general debate on agenda item 10, which would be 3 minutes for States members of the Council and 2 minutes for observer States and other observers. Meetings and documentation The Council held 32 fully serviced meetings during its twelfth session. The text of the resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council is contained in part one of the present report. Annex I contains the list of attendance. Annex II contains the agenda of the Council as included in part V of the annex to Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007. Annex III contains the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of Council resolutions and decisions. Annex IV contains the list of documents issued for the twelfth session of the Council. Annex V contains the list of special procedures mandate-holders appointed by the Council at the twelfth session. Annex VI contains the Order of the review for the seventh, eighth and ninth sessions of the universal periodic review. Annex VII contains the list of troika members for the sixth, seventh and eighth sessions of the universal periodic review. Visits At the 1st meeting, on 14 September 2009, the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka, Mr. Mahinda Samarasinghe, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Affaires of the United States, Ms. Esther Brimmer, and H.R.H Princess Bajrakitiyabha of Thailand, respectively delivered a statement to the Council. At the 5th meeting, on 16 September 2009, the Federal Minister for Human Rights of Pakistan, Mr. Mumtaz Alam Gilani, delivered a statement to the Council. At the 9th meeting, on 18 September 2009, the Minister of Justice of Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Ms. Celima Torrico, delivered a statement to the Council. G. Selection and appointment of mandate-holders At its 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the Council appointed mandate holders in accordance with Council resolutions 5/1 and 6/36 (see annex V). At the same meeting, the representative of Sudan made a statement in relation to the appointment of mandate holders. H. Consideration and action on draft proposals Open-ended intergovernmental working group on the review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of the Russian Federation introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.28, sponsored by the Russian Federation and co-sponsored by Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bangladesh, Cuba, Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), Pakistan, Philippines, Serbia and Singapore. Subsequently, Belarus, Brazil, China, India, Kazakhstan, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of), Malaysia, Peru, Switzerland, Turkey, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Viet Nam joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of the Russian Federation orally revised the draft resolution by modifying operative paragraph 5. Also at the same meeting, the representative of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/1). I. Adoption of the report of the session At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the Rapporteur and Vice-President of the Council made a statement in connection with the draft report of the Council (A/HRC/12/L.10). At the same meeting the Council adopted the draft report ad referendum and decided to entrust the Rapporteur with their finalization. Also at the same meeting, the representatives of Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States) and Tunisia (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), as well as the observers for Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Man (also on behalf of ADALAH - Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee, Habitat International Coalition), Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples, Nord-Sud XXI and International Service for Human Rights made general remarks in relation to the session. Also at the same meeting, the President of the Council made a closing statement. II. Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General A. Update by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights At the 3rd meeting, on 15 September 2009, the High Commissioner for Human Rights made a statement providing an update of the activities of her office. During the ensuing general debate at the same meeting, at the 4th meeting on 15 September, and at the 5th meeting on 16 September, the following made statements: Representatives of States members of the Council: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Norway, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America; Representatives of the following observer States: Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Romania, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen, Zimbabwe; Observers for an intergovernmental organization: African Union; Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Civicus - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Colombian Commission of Jurists, European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (also on behalf of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Centre for Women Global Leadership, Danish National Organisation for Gay Men and Lesbians, International Commission of Jurists, International Service for Human Rights, Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany, the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights), France Libertés: Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, Human Rights Watch, Indian Council of South America, International Commission of Jurists, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Nord-Sud XXI, United Nations Watch, Women’s Human Rights International Association, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (also on behalf of Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l'Amitié entre les Peuples), World Organization against Torture (also on behalf of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues). At the 6th meeting, on 16 September, statements in exercise of the right of reply were made by the representatives of the Azerbaijan, Iraq, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan. Reports of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General At the 9th meeting, on 18 September 2009, Mona Rishmawi, representative of the Deputy High Commissioner, introduced the thematic reports prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General, including the report of the Joint Inspection Unit (A/64/94). At the 10th meeting, on the same day, the Council held a general debate on the reports presented by the representative of the Deputy High Commissioner, during which the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, China, Colombia2 (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Norway, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Russian Federation, Slovenia (also on behalf of Costa Rica, Italy, Switzerland, Morocco and Philippines), South Africa, Sweden2 (also on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay (also on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)); (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Dominican Republic, Israel, Peru, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Timor-Leste; (c) Observers for the following national human rights institutions: Consultative Council of Human Rights of Morocco, European Group of National Human Rights institutions, Network of African, National Human Rights Institutions, Provedoria dos Direitos Humanos e Justica de Timor-Leste; (d) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Fundación Para La Libertad,Human Rights First, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, Soka Gakkai International (also on behalf of CIVICUS - World Alliance For Citizen Participation, Human Rights Education Associations, International Alliance of Women, International Federation of University Women, International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women’s Association, Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, Women’s World Summit Foundation, and World Federation of United Nations Associations). At the same meeting, Mr. Enrique Roman Morey, Inspector at the Joint Inspection Unit, made his concluding remarks. At the 29th meeting, on 1 October, the Council held a general debate on the country-specific reports prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General and presented by the Deputy High Commissioner at the same meeting (see chapter X, B). At the same meeting, the representatives of Burundi and Cambodia made statements as concerned countries. C. Consideration and action on draft proposals Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Hungary introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.8, sponsored by Hungary and co-sponsored by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. Subsequently, Andorra, Armenia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Japan, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of), Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Thailand and Uruguay joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Hungary orally revised the draft resolution by deleting operative paragraph 5 and modifying operative paragraph 7. At the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/2). Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Special Representative of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict At the 4th meeting, on 15 September 2009, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for children and armed conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, presented her report (A/HRC/12/49). During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the 5th meeting, on 16 September, the following made statements and asked the Special Representative questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, China, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Norway, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Australia, Austria, Canada, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic; (c) Observers for the following intergovernmental organizations: African Union, European Commission; (d) Observer for a national human rights institution: Network of African National Human Rights Institutions; (e) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Colombian Commission of Jurists, International Club for Peace Research, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities. Interactive dialogue with special procedures Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery including its causes and consequences At the 6th meeting, on 16 September 2009, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery including its causes and consequences, Gulnara Shaninian, presented her report (A/HRC/12/21 and Add.1). At the same meeting, the representative of Haiti made a statement as concerned country. During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the Special Rapporteur questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, China, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Russian Federation, Sweden2 (on behalf of European Union), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Armenia, Australia, Morocco, Peru; (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Franciscans International, Global Alliance against Traffic in Women (also on behalf of Anti-Slavery International). At the same meeting, on 16 September, the Special Rapporteur answered questions and made her concluding remarks. At the same meeting, and at the 8th meeting on 17 September, statements in exercise of the right of reply were made by the representatives of Algeria and Morocco. Also at the 8th meeting, on 17 September, statements in exercise of the second right of reply were made by the representatives of Algeria and Morocco. Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography At the 6th meeting, on 16 September 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Najat M’Jid Maala, presented her report (A/HRC/12/23 and Add.1-3). At the same meeting, the representatives of Latvia and Estonia made statements as concerned countries. During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the Special Rapporteur questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, India, Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Republic of Korea, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Russian Federation, Senegal, Sweden2 (on behalf of European Union), Uruguay; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Australia, Chad, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru; (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Asian Legal Resource Centre, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, Worldwide Organization for Women, World Peace Council. At the 6th meeting, on 16 September, the Special Rapporteur answered questions and made her concluding remarks. Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity At the 6th meeting, on 16 September 2009, the independent expert on human rights and international solidarity, Rudi Muhammad Rizki, presented his report (A/HRC/12/27). During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the 8th meeting, on 17 September, the following made statements and asked the Independent Expert questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Indonesia, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference); (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Morocco, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Association of World Citizens (also on behalf of Nord-Sud XXI), Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, New Humanity. At the 8th meeting, on 17 September 2009, the Independent Expert answered questions and made his concluding remarks. Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation At the 8th meeting, on 17 September 2009, the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque, presented her report (A/HRC/12/24 and Add.1 and 2). At the same meeting, the representatives of Costa Rica and Egypt made statements as concerned countries. During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the same meeting, on 17 September 2009, the following made statements and asked the Independent Expert questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, Chile, China, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Ecuador, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey; (c) Observer for an intergovernmental organization: European Commission; (d) Observers for national human rights institutions: Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Provedoria dos Direitos Humanos e Justica de Timor-Leste. (e) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International (also on behalf of Green Peace International), International Club for Peace Research, International Educational Development, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (also on behalf of Centre Europe Tiers-Monde, Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples, and Solar Cookers International). At the same meeting, on 17 September 2009, the Independent Expert answered questions and made her concluding remarks. Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights At the 8th meeting, on 17 September 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, Okechukwu Ibeanu, presented his report (A/HRC/12/26 and Add.1 and 2). At the same meeting, the representatives of Côte d’Ivoire and Netherlands made statements as concerned countries. During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the same meeting, on 17 September 2009, the following made statements and asked the Special Rapporteur questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Turkey; (c) Observer for an intergovernmental organization: European Commission; (d) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International (also on behalf of Green Peace International), Centre Europe Tiers-Monde (also on behalf of France Libertés: Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements, Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples, and World Federation of Trade Unions), International Federation of Human Rights Leagues. At the same meeting, on 17 September 2009, the Special Rapporteur answered questions and made his concluding remarks. Working Group on the right to development At the 9th meeting, on 18 September 2009, Mona Rishmawi, read out the statement of Arjun Sengupta, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the working group on the right to development, on the report of the working group on the right to development (A/HRC/12/28). At the 10th meeting on the same day, the Council held a general debate on the report of the working group on the right to development (see chapter III, E). Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/rapporteur/ indigenous peoples At the 22nd meeting, on 28 September 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/rapporteur/ indigenous people, James Anaya, presented his report (A/HRC/12/34 and Add.1-10). At the same meeting, the representatives of Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Nepal, Panama and Peru made statements as concerned countries. During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the Special Rapporteur questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Mexico, Norway, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, New Zealand, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); (c) Observer for the United Nations entities, specialized agencies and related organizations: United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; (d) Observers for the following national human rights institutions: Canadian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Commission of Philippines; (d) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Colombian Commission of Jurists, Conectas dereitos Humanos, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights. At the same meeting, the Special Rapporteur answered questions and made his concluding remarks. Panel Panel discussion on human rights of migrants in detention centres At the 7th meeting, on 17 September 2009, pursuant to Council resolution 11/9, the Council held a panel discussion on the matter of the human rights of migrants in detention centres. The High Commissioner for Human Rights opened the discussion with a statement. At the same meeting the following panellists addressed the Council: El Hadji Malick Sow, Jorge Bustamente, Abdelhamid El Jamri, Vanessa Lesnie, and Ashley William Bonaventure Gois. In the first part of the ensuing discussion, the following made statements and asked the panellists questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, Colombia2 (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), China, Egypt, France, Italy, Mexico, Pakistan(on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), Switzerland, Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Arab Group), United States of America, Uruguay (also on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)); (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Australia, Côte d’Ivoire; (c) Observer for the United Nations entities, specialized agencies and related organizations: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; (d) Observer for a national human rights institution: Consultative Council of Human Rights of Morocco; (e) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: International Commission of Jurists, Migrants Rights International (also on behalf of International Detention Coalition, Migrant Forum in Asia, and National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights), World Organization against Torture. At the same meeting, the following panellists answered questions and made comments: Abdelhamid El Jamri, Vanessa Lesnie, and Ashley William Bonaventure Gois. In the second part of the ensuing discussion at the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the panellists questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Angola, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Indonesia, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Ecuador, Morocco, Peru, Switzerland; (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Centre Indépendent de Recherches et d’Initiatives pour le Dialogue (also on behalf of Espace Afrique International), Global Alliance against Traffic in Women, Human Rights First, Médecins Sans Frontières (International). At the same meeting, the following panellists answered questions and made their concluding remarks: El Hadji Malick Sow, Jorge Bustamente, Abdelhamid El Jamri, Vanessa Lesnie and Ashley William Bonaventure Gois. Follow-up to special sessions Follow-up to the special session on the impact of the global economic & financial crises on the universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights At the 9th meeting, on 18 September, the High Commissioner for Human Rights made a statement on the follow-up to the special session on the impact of the global economic & financial crises on the universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights. At the same meeting, the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Colombia2 (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Cuba, Egypt (also on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), India, Indonesia, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Russian Federation, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Arab Group), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay (also on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)); (b) Representative of an observer State: Algeria; (c) Observers for the following nongovernmental organizations: International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Nord-Sud XXI. Follow-up to the special session on the global food crisis At the 9th meeting, on 18 September, pursuant to resolution S-7/1, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier de Schutter, presented his report as a follow-up to the special session on the global food crisis (A/HRC/12/31). At the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the Special Rapporteur questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia2 (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Indonesia, Italy, Nicaragua, Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Arab Group), United States of America, Uruguay (also on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)); (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Australia, Iraq, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic; (c) Observer for an intergovernmental organization: European Commission; (d) Observers for the following nongovernmental organizations: Fédération Internationale des Mouvements d’Adultes Ruraux Catholiques (also on behalf of Centre Europe Tiers-Monde), Nord-Sud XXI, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights. At the same meeting, the Special Rapporteur answered questions and made his concluding remarks. General debate on agenda item 3 At the 10th meeting, on 18 September 2009, and at the 11th meeting, on 22 September, the Council held a general debate on thematic reports under agenda item 3, during which the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Angola, Burkina Faso, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Gabon, Ghana, Italy, Indonesia, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Norway, Pakistan (also on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovenia, Sweden2 (also on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, and Ukraine), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Denmark, Maldives, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Yemen; (c) Observer for Holy See; (d) Observer for the United Nations entities, specialized agencies and related organizations; (e) Observer for International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies; (f) Observer for an intergovernmental organization: African Union; (g) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Al-Hakim Foundation (also on behalf of Interfaith International), Amnesty International, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Association for World Education (also on behalf of International Humanist and Ethical Union), Centrist Democratic International, Conectas Human Rights, Conscience and Peace Tax International, European Union for Public Relations, France Libertés: Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, Franciscans International (also on behalf of Dominicans for Justice and Peace (Order of Preachers)), Friends World Committee for Consultation-QUAKERS, Human Rights Watch, Indian Council of South America, Interfaith International, International Association against Torture, International Club for Peace Research, International Commission of Jurists, International Educational Development, International Humanist and Ethical Union, International Human Rights of American Minorities, International Institute for Peace, Iranian Elite Research Center, Jana Utthan Pratisthan, Liberation, Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association, Nord-Sud XXI, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Organisation pour la Communication en Afrique et de Promotion de la Coopération Economique Internationale, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, Society for Threatened Peoples, The Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims, World Music Congress, World Peace Council. At the 11th meeting, on 22 September, statements in exercise of the right of reply were made by the representatives of Algeria, Morocco and Sri Lanka. Consideration and action on draft proposals Independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Hungary introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.7, sponsored by Hungary and co-sponsored by Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay. Subsequently, Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Cameroon, Canada, El Salvador, Finland, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Japan, Madagascar, Maldives, Moldova, Montenegro, Nepal, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey, United States of America and Zambia joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/3). World Programme for Human Rights Education At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Costa Rica introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.9, sponsored by Costa Rica, Italy, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Slovenia and Switzerland and co-sponsored by Austria, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Latvia, Monaco, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Subsequently, Andorra, Armenia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Poland, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, United States of America joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Costa Rica orally revised the draft resolution by modifying operative paragraph 4. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/4). Protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflicts At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Egypt introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.15, sponsored by Egypt. Subsequently, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Burkina Faso and Costa Rica joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/5). Human rights of migrants: migration and human rights of the child At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Mexico introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.16, sponsored by Mexico and co-sponsored by Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Paraguay, Peru and Turkey. Subsequently, Algeria, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia and Switzerland joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Mexico orally revised the draft resolution by modifying operative paragraphs 4 and 5. Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/6). Elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Japan introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.17, sponsored by Japan and co-sponsored by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Subsequently, Algeria, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia (Former Republic of), Madagascar, Mali, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Turkey and United States of America joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Japan orally revised the draft resolution by modifying its title, the preambular paragraphs 1 and 2 and operative paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. At the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/7). Human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation 40. At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representatives of Germany and Spain introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.19, sponsored by Germany and Spain and co-sponsored by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and Uruguay. Subsequently, Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, Macedonia (Former Republic of), Maldives, Mali, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Spain orally revised the draft resolution by modifying preambular paragraph 5 and operative paragraphs 3 and 6. Also at the same meeting, the representative of Brazil (also on behalf of the Plurinational State of Bolivia) made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/8). Human rights and international solidarity At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Cuba introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.20, sponsored by Cuba and co-sponsored by Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. Subsequently, Algeria, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Senegal and Tunisia joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) made a statement in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, at the request of the representative of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council), a recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.20. The draft resolution was adopted by 33 votes in favour, 14 against. The voting was as follows: In favor: Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, Zambia; Against: Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. For the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/9. Follow-up to the seventh special session of the Human Rights Council on the negative impact of the worsening of the world food crisis on the realization of the right to food for all At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Cuba introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.21, sponsored by Cuba and co-sponsored by Algeria, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, China, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Luxembourg, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palestine, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. Subsequently, Angola, Armenia, Cameroon, Finland, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Serbia and Turkey joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of United States of America made a statement in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/10). Human Rights and transitional justice At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Switzerland introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.26/Rev.1, sponsored by Switzerland and co-sponsored by Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Montenegro, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Subsequently, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, Estonia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Israel, Maldives, Malta, Netherlands, Palestine, Senegal, Serbia and Slovenia joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Switzerland orally revised the draft resolution by modifying operative paragraphs 5 and 6. Also at the same meeting, the representative of United States of America made a statement in explanation of vote before the vote. At the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/11). Right to the truth At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Argentina introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.27, sponsored by Argentina and co-sponsored by Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay. Subsequently, Armenia, El Salvador, Iceland, Japan, Montenegro, Poland, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of), Mexico, Serbia, United States of America, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/12). Human rights and indigenous peoples At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Guatemala introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.33, sponsored by Guatemala and Mexico and co-sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Spain, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Subsequently, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cuba, Greece, New Zealand, Poland and United States of America joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/13). At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Norway made general remarks in relation to the adopted resolution. Regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Belgium introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.2/Rev.1, sponsored by Belgium and co-sponsored by Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Finland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Senegal, Thailand and Ukraine. Subsequently, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America joined the sponsors. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/15). Freedom of opinion and expression At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representatives of Egypt and United States of America introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1, sponsored by Egypt and United States of America. Subsequently, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Palestine, Peru, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Yemen and Zambia joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of United States of America orally revised the draft resolution by modifying operative paragraph 8. At the 31st meeting, on 2 October, the representative of South Africa made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the representatives of Chile, Cuba, France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) and Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) made statements in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/16). At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October, the representatives of Algeria and Canada made general remarks in relation to the adopted resolution. Elimination of discrimination against women At the 31st meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Mexico introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.3/Rev.1, sponsored by Colombia and Mexico and co-sponsored by Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, France, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Rwanda, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Uruguay. Subsequently, Angola, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, El Salvador, Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Slovakia, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Mexico orally revised the draft resolution by modifying operative paragraphs 15 and 16. Also at the same meeting, the representatives of Norway, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Slovenia and United States of America made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised) was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/17). The adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights At the 31st meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Côte d’Ivoire (on behalf of the Group of African States) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.4/Rev.1, sponsored by the Group of African States. Subsequently, Brazil, China, Cuba and Turkey joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representatives of Brazil, France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) and United States of America made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/18). Draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights At the 31st meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of France introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.30/Rev.1, sponsored by France and co-sponsored by Albania, Andorra, Austria*ð, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Chile, Denm ark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay. Subsequently, Brazil, Iceland, Mauritius, Mexico, Thailand and Turkey, joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/19). The effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights At the 31st meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Cuba introduced draft decision A/HRC/12/L.22, sponsored by Cuba and co-sponsored by Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Nicaragua, Philippines, South Africa, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Viet Nam. Subsequently, Senegal joined the sponsors. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the representative of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) made a statement in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, at the request of the representative of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council), a recorded vote was taken on draft decision A/HRC/12/L.22. The draft decision was adopted by 31 votes in favour, 13 against, with 2 abstentions. The voting was as follows: In favour: Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay; Against: Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America; Abstaining: Mexico, Norway. For the text as adopted, see part one, chapter II, decision 12/119. Human rights and unilateral coercive measures At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.5, sponsored by the Non-Aligned Movement and co-sponsored by Uruguay. At the same meeting, the representatives of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) and United States of America made statements in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, at the request of the representative of United States of America, a recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.5. The draft resolution was adopted by 32 votes in favour, 14 against. The voting was as follows: In favour: Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay; Against: Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. For the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/22. The right to development At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.6/Rev.1, sponsored by the Non-Aligned Movement and co-sponsored by Armenia and Uruguay. Subsequently, Brazil and Cameroon joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representatives of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) and United States of America made statements in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, at the request of the representative of United States of America, a recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.6/Rev.1. The draft resolution was adopted by 33 votes in favour, with 14 abstentions. The voting was as follows: In favour: Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, Zambia; Abstaining: Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. For the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/23. Access to medicine in the context of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Brazil introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.23, sponsored by Brazil and co-sponsored by Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, South Africa and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Subsequently, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Chad, Chile, Guatemala, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Viet Nam joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Brazil orally revised the draft resolution by deleting operative paragraph 3, modifying operative paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9 and adding operative paragraph 5bis. Also at the same meeting, the representatives of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) and Pakistan made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the representative of United States of America made a statement in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/24). The protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Brazil introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.24, sponsored by Brazil and co-sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Africa, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Subsequently, Angola, Armenia, Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Montenegro, Senegal, Serbia and Thailand joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Brazil orally revised the draft resolution by modifying preambular paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 13, 15 and 19 and operative paragraphs 1, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17. Also at the same meeting, the representative of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the representatives of Egypt and Indonesia made statements in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/27). Follow-up to the tenth special session of the Human Rights Council on the impact of the global economic and financial crises on the universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representatives of Brazil and Egypt introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.25, sponsored by Brazil and co-sponsored by Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Viet Nam. Subsequently, Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Guatemala, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Senegal, Thailand, Uruguay and Zambia joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Brazil orally revised the draft resolution by deleting operative paragraph 2, adding operative paragraphs 2bis, 2ter and 2quart, and modifying preambular paragraph 5 and 19 and operative paragraphs 1, 3, and 6. Also at the same meeting, the representative of France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) and Pakistan made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the representative of United States of America made a statement in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/28). At the same meeting, the representative of Nigeria made a statement in explanation of vote after the vote. Also at the same meeting, the representatives of Brazil and France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council) made general remarks in relation to the adopted resolution. IV. Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention A. General debate on agenda item 4 At the 11th, 12th and 13th meetings, on 22 September 2009, the Council held a general debate on agenda item 4, during which the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Argentina, Belgium, China, Cuba, France, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Norway, Sweden2 (also on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, Luxembourg , New Zealand, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland; (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme, Al – Hakim Foundation (also on behalf of Interfaith International), American Association of Jurists, Amnesty International, Asian Legal Resource Center, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Association for World Education (also on behalf of International Humanist and Ethical Union), Bahá’í International Community, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Centre Europe Tiers-Monde (also on behalf of Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples), Centrist Democratic International, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Comisión Jurídica para el Autodesarollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Conectas Human Rights, European Union for Public Relations, France Libertés: Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, Franciscans International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Indian Council of South America, Interfaith International, International Club for Peace Research, International Commission of Jurists, International Educational Development, International Federation of Human Rights, International Human Rights of American Minorities, International Humanist and Ethical Union, International Institute for Peace, International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, Liberation, Maryan Ghasemi Educational Charity Institute, Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association, Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples, Nord Sud XXI (also on behalf of Union of Arab Jurists), Organisation pour la Promotion de la Coopération Economique Internationale, Society for Threatened Peoples, United Nations Watch, Women’s Human Rights International Association, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, World Federation of Trade Unions, World Muslim Congress, World Peace Council, World Organization against Torture (also on behalf of the Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims). At the 13th meeting, on 22 September, statements in exercise of the right of reply were made by the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Cameroon, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Holy See, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Japan, Morocco, Myanmar, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Zimbabwe. At the same meeting, statements in exercise of a second right of reply were made by the representatives of: Algeria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan and Morocco. B. Consideration and action on draft proposals Situation of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’état of 28 June 2009 At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Colombia (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.31, sponsored by the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States and co-sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Lithuania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Subsequently, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Colombia orally revised the draft resolution by modifying preambular paragraphs 5 and 7. Also at the same meeting, the representative of Nicaragua made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the representative of India made a statement in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/14). Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar At the 30th and 31st meetings, on 1 and 2 October 2009, the representative of Sweden (on behalf of the European Union) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.32, sponsored by the European Union and co-sponsored by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Subsequently, Chile, Iceland, Maldives, Mauritius, Republic of Korea, Switzerland and United States of America joined the sponsors. At the 31st meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representatives of China, Cuba, Indonesia, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Philippines and the Russian Federation made general comments dissociating their delegations from the consensus in relation to the draft resolution. Also at the same meeting, the representative of Myanmar made a statement as a concerned country. At the same meeting, the representative of India made a statement in explanation of vote before the vote dissociating the delegation from the consensus in relation to the draft resolution. Also at the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/20). At the same meeting, the representative of Japan made a statement in explanation of vote after the vote. At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October, the representatives of Cambodia, Thailand and Viet Nam made general remarks in relation to the adopted resolution. The situation of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’état of 28 June 2009 At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Colombia (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.31, sponsored by the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States and co-sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Lithuania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Subsequently, Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined the sponsors. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/14). V. Human rights bodies and mechanisms A. Complaint Procedure At the 13th meeting, on 22 September 2009, and at the 27th meeting, on 30 September, the Council held two closed meetings of the complaint procedure. At the 28th meeting, on 1 October, the President made a statement on the outcome of the meetings, stating: “The Human Rights Council has, in closed meetings, examined the human rights situation in Guinea, under the complaint procedure established pursuant to Council resolution 5/1. The Council has decided to keep the human rights situation in Guinea under review.” B. Expert Mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples At the 22nd meeting, on 28 September 2009, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples, Jannie Lasimbang, presented the report of the expert mechanism (A/HRC/12/33). C. General debate on agenda item 5 At the 22nd and 25th meetings, on 28 and 30 September 2009, the Council held a general debate on agenda item 5, during which the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, Japan, Latvia2 (also on behalf of Argentina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Guatemala, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay and the European Union), Morocco2 (also on behalf of Costa Rica, Italy, Philippines, Senegal, Slovenia and Switzerland), Norway, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine), United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Australia, Denmark, Finland, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); (c) Observer for the following national human rights institutions: Consultative Council of Human Rights of Morocco, Human Rights Commission of Philippines; (d) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International, Association of World Citizens, Comisión Jurídica para el Autodesarrollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, Indian Council of South America (also on behalf of International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development), Indigenous World Association, Interfaith International, International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, International Organization for the Rights of Education and the Freedom of Education (also on behalf of Al-Hakim Foundation, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, Education and Development- VIDES, Human Rights Education Associates, Instituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice, International Federation of University Women, International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Volunteerism Organisation for Women, New Humanity, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women’s Association, Servas International, Soka Gakkai International, Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, and World Federation of the United Nations Associations), International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs, Nord-Sud XXI, Society for Threatened Peoples, the Saami Council, World Peace Council. D. Consideration and action on draft proposals Missing Persons At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Azerbaijan introduced draft decision A/HRC/12/L.1, sponsored by Azerbaijan. Subsequently, Armenia and Ukraine joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the draft decision was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter II, decision 12/117). United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training At the 30th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Morocco introduced draft decision A/HRC/12/L.11, sponsored by Costa Rica, Italy, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Slovenia and Switzerland and co-sponsored by Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Congo, Croatia, France, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Monaco, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Somalia, Spain, Tunisia, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Subsequently, Angola, Bahrain, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Gabon, Greece, Guatemala, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Palestine, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Viet Nam and Yemen joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the draft decision was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter II, decision 12/118). VI. Universal Periodic Review At the 3rd meeting, on 15 September 2009, the Council confirmed the adoption of the order of the review for the seventh, eighth and ninth sessions of the universal periodic review that was established by the drawing of lots on 14 September 2009 and the fact that it took place at an informal meeting of the Council will not serve as a precedent (see annex VI). At the same meeting, the Council also confirmed the adoption of the selection of the troika members for the sixth, seventh and eighth sessions of the universal periodic review that was conducted in accordance with paragraph 18 (d) of Council resolution 5/1 on 14 September 2009 and the fact that it took place at an informal meeting of the Council will not serve as a precedent (for the results of the selection of troikas, see the annex VII to the final report). Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251, Council resolution 5/1, the Council considered the outcome of the reviews conducted during the fifth session of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review held from 4 to 15 May 2009. A. Consideration of the universal periodic review outcomes According to paragraph 4.3 of the President’s statement 8/1, the following section contains a summary of the views expressed on the outcome by States under review, Member and Observer States of the Council, as well as general comments made by other relevant stakeholders before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary. Central African Republic The review of the Central African Republic was held on 4 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by the Central African Republic in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/CAF/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/CAF/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/CAF/3). At its 14th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on the Central African Republic (see section C below). The outcome of the review on the Central African Republic is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/2), together with the views of the Central African Republic concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group. 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The delegation of the Central African Republic welcomed the opportunity given to provide responses to the recommendations addressed to it. The delegation stressed the readiness of the State to ratify all relevant international instruments, provided that the political, economical, social and cultural conditions were in place, adding that implementing international instruments at the national level came against mobilizing the necessary resources and disruptions in the process of depositing ratification instruments. Regarding recommendations 20 to 24 (paragraph 75) relating to the abolition of the death penalty, the delegation stressed that the matter was still under discussion, indicating that the majority was opposed to such abolition because of the high rate of crime. The delegation indicated which crimes were still punishable with the death penalty, and stressed that the last executions took place in 1981. In relation to recommendation 35, the delegation indicated that all press offences had been abolished, while noting that journalists may be guilty of common law offences, such as defamation and press offences defined by the High Communication Council. Regarding recommendation 34, the delegation indicated that judicial authorities undertook an exhaustive assessment of the massive human rights and humanitarian law violations committed in 2002-2003. This had enabled the authorities to seize the International Criminal Court. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Compensation Fund had been adopted during the national dialogue of 2008. However, implementation of this recommendation was delayed due to financial difficulties. Regarding recommendations 25 and 33, the delegation underlined that, in accordance with the Constitution, the judiciary was a branch power which independence was guaranteed through a number of management bodies. Despite some problems, such as arbitrary arrests, corruption and other irregularities, several projects were being undertaken, with the financial assistance of the United Nations Development Programme. Regarding recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 26, the delegation underlined that summary and extrajudicial executions and torture had never been institutionalized by the State. In that regard, a series of measures proved the willingness of the government to remedy this problem. Additional measures were being envisaged, such as the establishment of a human rights day, the decentralization of the services of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, training of human rights stakeholders, and the dissemination of texts. In relation to recommendations 11, 16-19, 27-29, and 30, the delegation underscored that the Central African Republic had ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Female genital mutilations are not practiced throughout the territory and are prohibited by law. However, cultural beliefs/practices and the interests of practitioners made its full implementation challenging. The Family code was being reviewed to ensure its compliance with international standards, and with a view to either maintaining or abolishing polygamy. The delegation stressed that due to cultural concerns, the Central African Republic was not ready to sign a declaration on discrimination based on sexual orientation, adding that no law prohibited or authorized it. On the recommendation to remove reference to the crime of witchcraft in the penal code, the delegation indicated that witchcraft was a reality in Central Africa. The Government envisaged training prison wardens who committed violence against women suspected of witchcraft and developing sensitization programmes to modify behaviours of the population and of the justice system. In relation to recommendations 31 and 32 on defence and security forces, the delegation welcomed the forthcoming adoption of the Code of military justice. Other positive measures had been adopted, in the areas of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of children, demobilization of women soldiers, training of former child-soldiers, strengthening of peace, and elimination of supplementary police forces. Regarding recommendations 6-8, 10, 12, 14 and 15, relating inter alia to standing invitations extended to special procedures and independent experts, the delegation indicated that the Central African Republic acknowledged their relevance and undertook measures to facilitate the functioning of procedures and the respect of the United Nations calendar. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria stated that the Central African authorities had demonstrated their serious approach to the UPR, as illustrated by their acceptance of 66 out of the 99 recommendations addressed to them. Among them, the recommendation of Algeria relating to the implementation, with the assistance of the OHCHR, of a training and awareness-raising programme on international human rights and humanitarian law for members of the security forces, law enforcement officials and judicial officials was mentioned. Algeria welcomed the adoption of concrete measures taken to effectively promote and protect human rights, despite difficulties and constraints. Algeria was pleased with the Government’s readiness to implement priorities set out in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for 2008-2010 to consolidate peace and stability, prevent conflicts and strengthen the macro-economic framework as well as on-going reforms. It called on the international community to provide the State with technical and financial assistance. The Russian Federation congratulated the Central African Republic for having given its consent to approximately two thirds of the recommendations and for having expressed its willingness to study others. It noted the voluntary commitments taken by the State including the adoption of the national plan of action for the promotion and protection of human rights and a new criminal code. It wished the Central African Republic maximum success in realizing all accepted commitments and future progress in promoting and protection of human rights. Egypt welcomed the comprehensive presentation by the Central African Republic. It stressed that despite many challenges and constraints, the government had made efforts to promote human rights, which resulted in considerable progress and the attainment of stability since the adoption of the 2004 Constitution. It appreciated the responses given to recommendations and reiterated its call that the State continue its efforts to promote all universally agreed human rights and fundamental freedoms and to resist attempts to enforce any values or standards beyond the universally agreed ones. It also encouraged the State to implement its penal code in conformity with the universally agreed human rights standards, including the application of the death penalty. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya commended the government for its efforts, including regarding poverty reduction, economic reforms, ratification of most human rights international instruments and reforms aimed at guarantying women’s rights. It stressed that support from the international community was important to reach the Millennium Development Goals and to promote human rights. It considered that voluntary commitments made by the State during the presentation of its national report were highly important. Morocco took note of the sincere commitment of the Central African Republic, which deserved the encouragement and appreciation of the Human Rights Council. It considered that the number of recommendations enjoying support of the Government illustrated its decision to go ahead in a transparent and objective manner, despite deadlines and budgetary difficulties. Morocco thanked the State for accepting its own recommendation regarding the assistance by the international community to strengthen its capacity. Morocco highlighted the determination of the Government to respect its international human rights commitments and called on the international community to help it in identifying appropriate ways and means to ensure stability and development. The United States welcomed the Central African Republic’s efforts to improve human rights. It remained concerned about the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of human rights abuses in the security forces, including the presidential guard. It strongly supported the recommendations to investigate abuses and hold those responsible of violations accountable, and to incorporate human rights training into the military training. It appreciated the State’s efforts on the issue of child soldiers and to undertake reforms of the justice system, its willingness to work with human rights organizations and encouraged the State to continue allowing special procedures to visit the country. It welcomed the national action plan on gender-based violence. Cuba thanked the Central African Republic for its responses and stressed that during the review in May, participants were able to acknowledge the efforts undertaken by the government to protect human rights despite major difficulties due to an unjust international economic system and the global economic and financial crisis. Cuba added that the State was a developing country which had adopted a number of measures to ensure the human rights of, in particular, vulnerable groups such as children and women, ethnic minorities and disabled people. Cuba considered that these efforts were the sign of strong commitment of the government. Notwithstanding these efforts, the State still needed the assistance of the international community. Cuba urged all of those who truly work in favour of human rights to provide their assistance. Djibouti commended the Central African Republic for its sincere commitment to respect recommendations made, despite various constraints. Djibouti asked the international community to provide technical and financial assistance and to support the State in its efforts. Cameroon noted a number of obstacles standing on the way of full enjoyment of human rights in the Central African Republic and efforts made by the State to overcome them. It added that the State still needed the assistance of the international community especially in the fight against poverty and illiteracy. Cameroon stood ready to provide the necessary support to the Central African Republic. It expressed the wish that the government implement them as much as possible and as quickly as possible. The Democratic Republic of the Congo welcomed the State’s commitment to pursue its policy of national reconciliation and to implement decisions arising from the inclusive political dialogue, and its determination to rehabilitate the National Commission of Human Rights. It encouraged the State to continue its efforts in improving human rights and implementing announced reforms. It commended the voluntary commitment to adopt a National Plan of Action for the promotion and protection of human rights. Gabon expressed is satisfaction for having been a member of the troika for the Central African Republic, which demonstrated its interest in promoting and protecting human rights, despite financial difficulties and numerous political jolts. Gabon called on the international community to provide the State with technical and financial support required to carry out its ambitious programme for human rights. Chad noted with satisfaction that the Central African Republic had established a number of institutions aiming at consolidating democracy, such as the National Council of Mediation and the High Council of Communication. It also took note of efforts made to give visibility to the promotion and protection of human rights throughout its territory to strengthen peace and national cohesion. Having highlighted the limited resources of the State, Chad suggested that the international community provide material and financial assistance to the State to implement the recommendations made. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders The International Federation of Action by Christians for the abolition of torture was concerned by a number of human rights violations and a recurrent policy of torture and ill-treatment in police stations and in prisons, and by the impunity therein. It encouraged the State to ratify the Convention against torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and to abolish the death penalty. It considered that the State should take the opportunity offered by the review of its Criminal code and Code of criminal procedure to bring its legal system in conformity with international standards. It encouraged the State to address the issue of over-crowding in prisons and to ensure decent living conditions to detainees. The International Lesbian and Gay Association and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network commended the State for supporting the joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity delivered at the General Assembly. Referring to the government’s response to recommendation 16 of paragraph 75 of the Working group report, they urged the State to review its legislation to ensure that it does not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity; and to protect the rights of sexual minorities in accordance with international instruments. They welcomed the State’s support to recommendation 16 of paragraph 74 and encouraged the government to include education about sexual orientation and gender identity issues within trainings for security forces and prison staff. Interfaith International stated that they had reported many cases of torture, crimes, rapes, sexual violence, summary executions, destruction of public property, enforced disappearances in Bangui and in several regions, following the coup d’état of 2003. It noted that presidential and legislative elections in 2005 had brought peace in the country. It called on the authorities to consider recommendations 2, 25, 26, 33 and 34 which implementation was related to domestic legislative reforms which still remained deficient. It called on the State to remedy such deficiency and to demonstrate it political will for building a democratic State. The International Federation of Human Rights Leagues welcomed the commitments of the Central African Republic. It noted that since the second half of 2005, confrontation between the army and rebel groups had led to summary executions, sexual violence, torture and systematic looting, forcing 100,000 people to flee. While the State had undertaken to punish perpetrators of violations, a 2008 amnesty law showed that it despised victims. The International Federation of Human Rights Leagues recalled the death of Wanfiyo Goungaye who had received threats since the opening of the Bemba case before the International Criminal Court. It called upon the Human Rights Council to monitor the respect by the government of its commitments. Human Rights Watch welcomed steps taken by the government to end abuses by the security forces. However, it was concerned about continuing attacks against civilians in the context of the government’s counter-insurgency operations against rebels in the north, and about alleged abuses by paramilitary groups that are allied with the government. It considered as crucial to reform the security sector and to ensure that members of the security forces undergo a thorough training and awareness program in international humanitarian and human rights law. It considered that the State should fully implement the recommendations it had accepted and ensure that all violations of human rights or humanitarian law are investigated and those responsible are prosecuted and punished. The fact that the incidence of attacks by Government Security Forces against civilians had fallen dramatically was testament to the capacity of the government to take concrete steps to halt violations. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The delegation welcomed the acknowledgement of the international community of its need for assistance on the road to peace which implied respect for human rights The delegation wished to provide some clarification in relation to some concerns which had been expressed, stressing that the Central African Republic had demonstrated its good faith. Since 2003, tangible efforts had been made to address the issue of summary executions and to ensure security. The delegation mentioned the situation of the East of the country which was experiencing incursions by rebels from Uganda. The international community was fully aware of the situation as well as of the financial and military capacity of the State. The delegation insisted on the necessary assistance by the international community in this regard, while underlining that the Central African Republic should remain a state governed by the rule of law. With reference of the Wanfiyo Goungaye case, the delegation noted that efforts had been made to address the situation. The delegation added that amnesty was a legal mean used to ensure national peace and reconciliation and not to strengthen impunity. Stakeholders were involved in the inclusive political dialogue which identified a number of measures to ensure peace. Regarding the reform of the justice system, the strengthening of capacities, and the need to address the issue of prison over-crowding, the delegation underlined that this required financial resources and the assistance of the international community. The Central African Republic was ready to implement all recommendations, but needed assistance in that regard. Monaco The review of Monaco was held on 4 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Monaco in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/3). At its 14th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Monaco (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Monaco is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/3), together with the views of Monaco concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group. 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The head of delegation, HE Robert Fillon, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked all delegations who made comments during the Working Group held on 4 May. He assured that they were duly taken into consideration by the Monegasque authorities. He underlined that the preparation of the national report was complex and mobilised forces in the country. Due to the size of the State, one should keep in mind that problems arising in the ground are small both in numbers and in scale. Although each individual case shall be tackled, the overall human rights situation is rather good due notably to freedom of expression guaranteed by a recently adopted legislation and to a properly proportioned and efficient judicial system. The head of delegation recalled that Monaco already accepted numbers of recommendations during the review and committed to reply to others during this session. Regarding the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, Monaco signed this instrument on 7 February 2007. However, in view of the fact that a legal reform, including a legislative reform, is required for its incorporation in the Monegasque law and although this process has already started it will be long and complex. Therefore Monaco cannot firmly commit at present to its ratification. On the adhesion of Monaco to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the head of the delegation recalled three important issues which presently prevent Monaco from adhering. First, Monegasque legislation on trade union law is not compatible with ILO Convention 87 on three different issues. A legislative reform is envisaged to this end. Second, the employment priority system has to be seen in light of ILO Conventions 100 and 111. The latter deals with national extraction, a concept distinct from citizenship, which therefore, does not raise any problem in Monegasque law. However, the Monegasque employment priority may be considered as discriminatory against foreigners living in Monaco. Although real, this issue is largely theoretic, as there are 8000 nationals and 45’000 working people. Thirdly, the reporting obligations resulting from the various ILO legal instruments are too heavy for a State like Monaco, who would not be in a position to respect these obligations with diligence and efficiency. Monaco recalled that the jurisprudence of the Monegasque tribunals relating to labour law demonstrates due respect for the principles elaborated by ILO. Regarding the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (OP-CEDAW), Monaco recalled that it is party to CEDAW since 2005 and has shown its commitment to the ideals and values of this Convention. The exercise of the fundamental values guaranteed in the Constitution cannot give rise to any difference of treatment and Section III of the Constitution precisely defines all such fundamental rights and freedoms. Women benefit from the same economic and social advantages and rights than men. On domestic violence, Monaco attaches great importance in having a specific law on this issue and a draft was recently adopted which will be examined to be enacted soon. OP-CEDAW does not add any values and principles to the Convention but its ratification will require a review of the legal apparatus beforehand. Monaco recalled that it signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. It undertook a constitutional and legislative review, which highlighted discrepancies between the Statute and Monegasque domestic law. This will therefore require revisions of both the Constitution and various laws, what constitutes a large-scale reform process. Regarding the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OP-CAT), the head of delegation recalled that Monaco has only one jail with a yearly average of 30 detainees serving short-term sentences. No instances of mistreatment or bad living conditions were ever recorded or even alleged. Therefore the establishment of an independent visiting body did not seem adapted to the situation of Monaco which will therefore not commit to this instrument. The definition of torture derives from the Constitution. Monaco adhered to CAT and is part to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which also prohibits torture in article 7), the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, all of which were integrated in domestic law. Therefore, although the law does not provide for a definition of torture, judges may directly refer to article 1 of CAT and acts of torture are punished in the Criminal Code since 1967. As of today, no instances of such treatment were considered by the tribunals and the Criminal Procedure Code makes an explicit reference to CAT. On National Human Rights Institution, Monaco reopened a national discussion after the review by the Working Group but is not of the view that such an institution is needed. Indeed, its responsibilities are currently performed by the Human Rights Cell, the Médiateur and existing rights to appeal. The Médiateur is competent for disputes between individuals and the administration, while legal recourses are available for any individuals or corporate bodies residing in Monaco, without distinction based on citizenship or wealth, and with the possibility of legal aid. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria commended the dialogue which occurred between Monaco and the Working Group. Algeria also commended Monaco for its interest in international cooperation, notably through the acceptance of the recommendation to increase its public aid to 0.7 per cent of its GNP by 2015. Algeria thanked Monaco for its explanation regarding its recommendation on the adhesion to ILO. Algeria commended the measures adopted by Monaco regarding education, health and housing of migrant workers but considered that the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW) is the most comprehensive international instrument in this regard. Although Monaco considers that this Convention is not applicable to the situation in the country, the mere fact that Monaco may consider its ratification at a later stage could serve as an incentive for other countries. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders In a joint statement, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe), the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (CHALN) and Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie von Homoseksualiteit – COC Nederland commended Monaco for accepting the working group recommendation to use public awareness raising campaigns to prevent discrimination, including on the ground of sexual orientation. While developing such campaigns, which can support the 2005 law which punishes incitement to hatred and violence, ILGAE, CHALN and COC Nederland urged the Government to (a) take into account specific issues that relate to each discrimination ground and specifically on the basis of sexual orientation as well as gender identity; (b) identify the means by which such campaigns will be developed, and (c) include civil society stakeholders. In developing such campaigns, ILGAE, CHALN and COC Nederland suggested that Monaco use the Yogyakarta Principles. ILGAE, CHALN and COC Nederland encouraged Monaco to endorse the joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, delivered to the UN General Assembly on 18 December 2008. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review Monaco reiterated its commitment to reach its objectives regarding public aid devoted to the most vulnerable persons in the poorest countries. Regarding ICRMW, Monaco recalled that there are discrepancies between this Convention and the national law noting that the measures adopted by Monaco for migrant workers are more protective than in the Convention, insofar labour law, social security and health are concerned. In its conclusion, the head of delegation recalled that the review of the human rights situation in Monaco should be done through a legal and pragmatic approach. In order to better assess the situation, Monaco extended a standing invitation to all special procedures and recommended a generalized acceptance of such invitations. Belize The review of Belize was held on 5 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Belize in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/BLZ/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/BLZ/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/BLZ/3). At its 14th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Belize (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Belize is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/4), together with the views of Belize concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/4/Add.1/). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The representative from Belize, Mrs. Kamela Palma, High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, stated that Belize viewed human rights as fundamental to the country’s development, its democracy and the very way of life of its citizens. For that reason Belize had accepted the vast majority of recommendations, and that further consultations at home were required on a mere 10 recommendations. Belize had approached the Universal Periodic Review seriously and with the frankness and sense of commitment that is indispensible to making the Review meaningful. Belize’s final position in respect of all the recommendations was contained in the Addendum to the Report, document A/HRC/12/ 7/Add1. Belize will continue to take a measured approach to the consideration of and accession to new treaties which will include a thorough review of obligations and reporting requirements to ensure meeting fully those obligations upon accession. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of Belize was in an advanced stage of discussions with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office in Panama to organize a workshop in Belize aimed at building the capacity of Government and stakeholders in drafting reports to the treaty bodies. The representative from Belize reiterated her call to the OHCHR, and the international community generally, to assist small countries like Belize in improving their technical capacity to meet their reporting obligations. Belize has noted that meeting reporting obligations is a shortcoming which plagues many small states. It may be necessary to re-think the existing process so that there can be more consolidation and streamlining of reports. Similarly, the Government of Belize has made initial contact with the OHCHR to express its interest in exploring the possibility of establishing a national human rights institution. A full consideration of all aspects of the establishment of such an institution must be undertaken before a final decision can be taken. In the interim, however, a number of existing institutions such as the National AIDS Commission, the National Women’s Commission, the National Council on Aging and the National Committee for Families and Children are tasked with ensuring the implementation of the particular human rights treaty. The National Women’s Commission of Belize is presently engaging in a project aimed at building the capacity of Belizean women to become more active participants in local and national politics – a deficiency acknowledged in the National Report. These were only a few examples to demonstrate that Belize is already beginning to take action on a number of the recommendations and will continue in this vein. The fundamental human rights of all Belizeans are enshrined in the Constitution. The preparation of the National Report for the Universal Periodic Review provided an opportunity to assess Belize’s human rights framework, the effectiveness of its implementation programmes and the reach of its human rights promotion initiatives. The interactive dialogue provided constructive and insightful comments and recommendations. Belize has found the UPR process forthright, but appreciative of its socio-economic context and resource constraints. It is the view of Belize that the UPR has achieved its objective. It has compelled that self-reflection which is imperative for improvement. And it has provided the opportunity to reaffirming Belize’s unwavering commitment to human rights. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria praised the acceptance by Belize of 36 recommendations out of 46 made. It welcomed Belize’s readiness to consider the possibility of establishing a national human rights institution in conformity with the Paris Principles. Algeria encouraged Belize to pursue its efforts in improving the situation of women in the country and welcomed its willingness to promote their rights and to ensure their empowerment and advancement. It noted that the programmes adopted by Belize to eradicate poverty and to improve social indicators, including in health and education, testify to its commitment in this regard. The Russian Federation expressed particular satisfaction at having been a member of the Troika in charge of Belize’s review. The Russian Federation noted that Belize’s main priorities included fighting HIV/AIDS, ensuring the right to education and overcoming the high-level of unemployment of youth, and assistance to persons living with disabilities. It wished the country, progress in implementing the various programmes in place to promote and protect human rights, and success in implementing the obligations assumed under the Universal Periodic Review process. Cuba appreciated the efforts and actions taken by Belize to implement the recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review Working Group and noted the acceptance of the majority of them . Cuba commended Belize for the efforts undertaken to implement the National Action Plan for Children and Youth, in the areas of education, health, protection, and HIV/AIDS among other sectors. It recognized positively the establishment of a committee to combat trafficking in persons, and the measures adopted to promote and protect the human rights of women. It encouraged Belize to continue on the path chosen. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (CHALN) expressed its appreciation of Belize’s clear responses to the recommendations. CHALN welcomed Belize’s acceptance of recommendation 12 by which the government agreed to provide human rights training with regard to the protection of vulnerable groups, including persons of minority sexual orientation or gender identity, to law enforcement officials, judicial officers and all State officials. CHALN regretted however, that Belize was not yet ready to accept recommendations 9 and 28, which urged the government to ensure that no-one is subject to criminal sanctions for same-sex activity between consenting adults, and to ensure that there is no discrimination on these grounds. CHALN referred to the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s ruling in the case Toonen v. Australia underlining that laws criminalizing same-sex conduct violate the international rights to privacy and non-discrimination, and impede measures to address HIV and AIDS by driving marginalized communities underground. It thus noted this is inconsistent with Belize’s acceptance of recommendation 18. Finally, CHALN welcomed Belize’s support for the OAS resolution on sexual orientation, gender identity and human rights adopted by consensus earlier this year. In keeping with that commitment, CHALN urged the government to bring the Criminal Code into conformity with its international obligations. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The representative from Belize thanked the Human Rights Council for its support and its recommendations. She noted with great respect the constructive comments made during the interactive dialogue by the countries who took the floor. Belize looked forward to continuing this constructive dialogue in the interim years until the next review, as the discussions on human rights must continue between the sessions of the Council and between the UPR cycles. Congo The review of Congo was held on 6 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Congo in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/COG/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/COG/2 and Corr.1); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/COG/3). At its 15th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Congo (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Congo is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/6), together with the views of Congo concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group. 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome H.E. Mrs. Rosalie Kama Niamayoua, Minister for Primary and Secondary Education in charge of literacy, noted that democracy is a process which is affected by a wide range of constraints including cultural difficulties inherent to each country and society. Congo reaffirmed its commitment to the UPR mechanism, and expressed its determination to live up all its international obligations. Despite the obstacles faced in a number of areas, the Government will spare no effort to bring about a society in Congo where people can live, think, express their views, move and act freely. The delegation indicated that it is in this spirit that the 50 recommendations accepted by Congo on 8 May 2009 are already being implemented. For this purpose, an Inter-Ministerial Commission responsible for monitoring the implementation of these recommendations has been established. Congo has ratified the two Protocols to the CRC. Moreover, Congo plans to ratify several other international conventions, as well as the Protocols thereto. The bill allowing the ratification of the ICRMW, the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, as well as the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance are being considered by the two Chambers of the Parliament. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is independent and has the authority to convene its own meetings (auto-court referral). The Government took due note of the recommendation to establish an institution in line with the Paris Principles. In that regard, the procedure of accreditation is underway and Congo is working, inter alia, in the framework of the 2010 budgetary period to implement two basic commitments: increasing the funds allocated to this institution; and speeding up the rehabilitation of its headquarter. Measures aiming at strengthening the protection of human rights and setting need-related priorities are contained in the preliminary draft of the National action plan on human rights for 2009-2013. In order to achieve this goal, the Government of Congo requested the support and assistance of the international community. With regard to the rights of the child, Congo is bound by the provisions of the international Conventions it has already ratified. Congo indicated that under the Article 136 of the Constitution and Article 14 of the organic law concerning the Higher Council of the Magistracy, the judiciary is independent and judges are only subjected to the law in exercising their function. Congo confirmed that the authorities are concerned by the conditions of detention. Indeed, detention facilities are regularly inspected both by the Attorney general of the Republic and by the ICRC, as well as by NGOs and the General Directorate for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Congo noted that the establishment of a Ministry in charge of the promotion and integration of women in development strategies responded to their claims. The delegation also informed that concerning violence against women, the Minister of Justice and the Minister on the Promotion of Women are working on a draft law to strengthen the provisions of Article 309 and related-articles of the Penal Code. The draft will be considered before the end of the present legislative term. Concerning the recommendation related to the elaboration of a law on the protection and assistance to displaced persons, Congo reaffirmed its firm commitment to set up a national legal framework in that regard, also taking into account the draft African Convention on the situation of internally displaced persons which provides for an effective normative framework for the protection of displaced persons and the assistance they should benefit from. Congo indicated that the Government will speed up the process of adoption of the draft law related to the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples currently processed by national institutions. Congo also provided information on the work of the Commission in charge of reviewing and drafting Congolese legal codes to remedy gaps and the lack of appropriate legislation in relation to certain human rights issues, which started its work on 10 August 2009. Concerning Congo’s treaty bodies reporting obligations, the Inter-Ministerial Committee established to that effect was convened twice in the last three months and Congo will be presenting its initial report to the CAT during its next October session. As it is aware of the necessity to incorporate human rights education in school curricula, Congo requested the support of the OHCHR and other partners to assist the country to finalise the programmes and text books currently being developed at the Institut National de Recherche et Actions Pedagogiques (INRAP). Congo expressed the will that the conclusions of the Working Group on UPR be reflected comprehensively and faithfully in the report submitted for the adoption by the Council. According to Congo, the question raised by recommendation 25 appearing in the report has already been taken into account by recommendations 23 and 24. Therefore, the Permanent Mission of Congo in Geneva through note ° 629/09/MPC/ONUG/OI of 22 May 2009 contacted the Secretariat of the Council asking for this recommendation to be withdrawn. As it is a prerogative belonging to the plenary, the Minister asked this fact to be reflected into the report. The Minister indicated that Congo will continue to rely on the valuable support of the OHCHR and other international institutions, as well as the wide-ranging support of its partners so that it can live up to its commitment in the area of the promotion and protection of human rights. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria commended Congo for having accepted more than 90 per cent of the recommendations which shows its cooperative and constructive attitude towards the UPR. It welcomed its acceptance of the recommendation made by Algeria on the establishment of a national institution for promotion and protection of human rights, and stressed the importance need for the Office of the High Commissioner to provide technical assistance in this respect. Algeria also welcomed the particular attention given to the protection and exercise of the rights of vulnerable groups such as women and children, particularly with respect to access for children to education and the participation of women in the development of the country. Algeria stressed the importance of support being given by United Nations programmes, specialized institutions and agencies to assist Congo in this area. The Russian Federation pointed out that Congo had already agreed to approximately 85 per cent of the recommendations received. It wished Congo a very successful implementation of its commitments during the UPR process and of its human rights programmes. Morocco commended Congo for having accepted a large number of recommendations, in order to ensure the enjoyment of human rights despite the variety of constraints, including economic. It also commended the Congolese authorities for having repeatedly stressed their support to the rights of vulnerable groups, in particular women and children. Morocco reaffirmed its support to the Congolese Government in its constant efforts in the area of human rights. The United States of America welcomed the efforts to provide free treatment for those living with HIV/AIDS and Congo’s willingness to allow the independent monitoring of its prisons, also to ensure better separation between women, men and children in detention centers. It called upon Congo to increase its efforts to prosecute human trafficking offenders and provide assistance to victims of trafficking. It strongly supported the Working Group recommendations to encourage the participation of civil society during election cycles, increase the independence and capacity of the national human rights commission and consider providing property rights to women. It appreciated the decision to allow the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to visit the country in 2010. Djibouti congratulated Congo’s UPR commitment. The UPR process has helped identify a number of challenges the Government has committed to address. In this respect, Djibouti asked the Government to do its utmost to implement the recommendations and called on the international community to provide support. Burkina Faso commended Congo’s efforts, in particular the accession to a number of international human rights instruments, and the acceptance of the majority of the recommendations put forward in the UPR process. Burkina Faso congratulated Congo on the action oriented measures to implement these recommendations. It reaffirmed its solidarity with Congo in its efforts to improve the human rights situation and supported its call for assistance in this regard. Egypt noted with appreciation the responses provided by the Congolese Government to the recommendations made during its review. Congo’s acceptance of most of the recommendations made reflected its commitment to human rights, especially in the areas of children’s and women’s rights, health and education. Egypt reiterated its request to Congo to maintain its efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms with the assistance of the international community. Cameroon noted that the information provided by Congo on its various efforts to protect the rights of persons in the country and related shortcomings, gave rise to a number of recommendations during the Working Group. Cameroon extended full support to Congo and invited it to implement as much as possible the various recommendations. Cuba noted that Congo’s acceptance of a number of recommendations showed its commitment to human rights. It also noted that the review in the Working Group highlighted Congo’s major efforts in a number of areas, including some mentioned by Cuba such as prevention of HIV/AIDS, and the treatment extended to affected persons. Cuba underscored Congo’s efforts in the area of education notwithstanding the clear obstacles arising for this underdeveloped country, which is yet another victim of the current unfair international economic order. Cuba launched an appeal for the strengthening of cooperation with Congo, including concrete actions such as external debt relief and also a commitment for Official Development Assistance, which could provide Congo with necessary resources to face challenges. The Democratic Republic of the Congo congratulated Congo for having launched on 10 August the work of the Commission and the Division of Legal Code in order to amend the human rights legislation. Regarding the recommendation made by the Democratic Republic of Congo on the elaboration of national legislation for the protection and assistance of internally displaced persons, the Democratic Republic of Congo thanked Congo for the information provided in this regard and commended the country for the role it played in the area of human rights, and the efforts made to bring their Commission in line with the Paris Principles. It also called upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide Congo with the assistance it has requested. Chad noted with satisfaction that Congo is party to a number of international instruments on human rights and has begun applying a number of recommendations. Chad made an appeal to the international community to provide material and financial assistance to Congo so as to enable it to rise to the challenge. Gabon welcomed Congo’s establishment of a think-tank to review the various recommendations put forward. It also noted that the national human rights institution of Congo is in conformity with the Paris Principles. It also made reference to the multiple political military crises that hit Congo and slowed down the progress in the area of respect for human rights. It commended Congo for its commitments and efforts towards peace in the country. The Central African Republic expressed its satisfaction for Congo’s achievements and the recent reached stability. It added that these efforts should continue with the support of the international community and urged it to provide such support. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders The International Federation of ACAT (Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture-FIACAT) commended Congo for having accepted many recommendations calling for the abolition of the death penalty. FIACAT and ACAT Congo encouraged Congo to take measures to deal with overcrowded prisons where men, women and children live together and lack of food. They encouraged Congo to provide access to NGOs working in the area of human rights. They also welcomed Congo’s acceptance of the recommendation on the respect of the provisions of the criminal code regarding torture. The organizations expressed the hope that a revision commission which would bring Congolese codes in line with international standards will be established. They remained concerned about the continued practice of torture, arbitrary and illegal detention in Congo and the absence of a standing invitation to all special procedures of the Council. In a joint statement, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe) and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network referred to the recommendations contained in paragraphs 23, 27 and 59 of the Working Group report on Congo, which urge the Government to repeal provisions in the Penal Code to decriminalize same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults. Reference was also made to the lack of legislation to protect lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people, with a negative impact on important HIV prevention work. The International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) and its member organization, the Congolese Observatory of Human Rights (OCDH), commended Congo on the commitments taken during the UPR. Nonetheless, it noted that some recommendations were not retained and others that were accepted were not put into effect yet. FIDH encouraged the Congolese authorities to bring into national law the additional protocol to the African Charter on human rights of women, especially regarding property and the sharing and transmitting of heritage of land and access to education. FIDH and OCDH called upon the Government to bring to an end the common practice of arbitrary detention and arrests, torture and deplorable conditions in prisons in police stations, and to punish the perpetrators. FIDH noted that the commitment of holding peaceful and free presidential elections in 2009 had already been ignored. FIDH and OCHD also regretted that no delegation recommended to Congo to better protect human rights defenders. They also regretted that Congolese authorities refuse to implement the recommendations relating to depenalizing homosexuality. Interfaith International noted that for a number of years, the village communities of Djeno, Bondi, Tchicanou in the county of Kouilou have been complaining about the effects on their land, wild life and health of the pollution arising from the exploitative activities of multinational petroleum companies. A number of appeals have been made by environmental organizations and civil society, but no initiative was taken to implement article 36 of the Constitution that provide for compensation. Interfaith International urged the Government to find a solution and to protect the human rights of the indigenous peoples, as well as to fight corruption. Comité pour le Respect et l’Application de la Charte Africaine des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples (CIRAC) commended Congo for the various mechanisms set up for a better legal protection of women, children, indigenous peoples, displaced people, people affected by HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis and vulnerable persons victims of exploitation and violence. Congo has taken up challenges such as fighting poverty, strengthening the judiciary system, promoting intercommunity dialogue and disarmament, reinsertion, demobilization, ratification of a number of international instruments and needed the support of the international community in that regard. Action Internationale pour la Paix et le Développement dans la Région des Grands Lacs (AIPD) referred to a number of specific actions taken by the Government for the national reconciliation after the civil war, as well as for the promotion and respect for human rights notwithstanding the material, human and financial problems in the country. AIPD called upon the international community to support the initiatives of Congo mentioned in the UPR Working Group report in the areas of rule of law, democracy and the full enjoyment of economic and social rights. Action Canada for Population and Development and the Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning indicated that the Government of Congo should inter alia: ensure that the legal protection of women and children victims of violence becomes effective in rural areas; adopt legislation necessary to prohibit the practice of sexual violence to which Congolese women have been exposed in conformity with CEDAW; continue to invest in the consultation of obstetrics and information provided by qualified mid-wives; continue efforts for protection of the rights of people affected by HIV/AIDS; continue efforts in favour of sexual equality and the health of mothers and girls. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review H. E. Mrs. Rosalie Kama Niamayoua said that the presidential elections which took place in July 2009 were in conformity with the rule of law and international practice. Congo thanked all those who supported it, and all those who had urged the adoption of the report. The Government would keep its promises and do its best to ensure the implementation of all recommendations it has accepted. Malta The review of Malta was held on 6 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Malta in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MLT/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MLT/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MLT/3). At its 15th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Malta (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Malta is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/7), together with the views of Malta concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/7/Add.1/Rev.2). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The delegation of Malta told the plenary that Maltese authorities felt the country’s review was a challenging and rewarding experience, offering a genuine opportunity for states to seriously examine their human rights processes in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation. It reiterated Malta’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights at the national and international levels. Noting that the present cycle of the universal periodic review process was an important first step to be taken forward by continued work in the following years, it stressed Malta’s commitment to engaging in the process to the greatest extent possible. The delegation expressed appreciation for all the actors who made Malta’s review possible. The delegation stated that Malta’s detailed response to the recommendations made in the course of the Working Group was contained in the addendum to its Working Group report, cited above. Malta could accept most of the 47 recommendations in part or in full, it added, stating that a number of them urged continuation and reinforcement of current practices and legislation. Other recommendations included suggestions regarding measures that were already in place in Malta or in the process of implementation. Malta explained what currently existed, and measures it would continue to undertake, in the addendum. With specific reference to recommendations regarding international treaties, Malta indicated it would ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and that it would withdraw the declaration made upon the signing of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Child on the involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. Malta would also ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It would not, however, accede to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families nor would it ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, nor the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Malta would also retain its reservations to articles 11 and 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The delegation reiterated Malta’s position that the right to life was an inherent right of every human being, including the unborn child from its conception. It would thus retain existing national legislation on abortion. On the question of legislating to recognise the relationship between two partners irrespective of their sex, Malta believed that this was a matter of national competence. Regarding the issue of irregular migration, it noted a number of recommendations on Malta’s policies and practices in this area. It expressed appreciation for the recognition by many delegations of the challenges arising for Malta from an unmanageable influx of illegal immigrants. The Maltese Government explained, in the addendum, that it was committed to resolving any issues that arose in this matter with full respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals concerned. It reiterated its commitment to respecting all its international obligations in this regard. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria welcomed Malta’s candour and transparency during its review. It noted that, in recent years, Malta has experienced a major influx of illegal immigrants and welcomed its policy in that respect, particularly in guaranteeing the equitable, just and humane treatment of migrants and protection of their human rights. It expressed its wish to see Malta considering, in the long-term, the possibility of acceding to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. It noted Malta’s decision not to establish a separate national human rights institution, given that there are several human rights institutions responsible for specific areas, such as children, equal opportunities and disabled persons. Algeria was encouraged by the measures and efforts already underway to promote the rights of vulnerable groups, especially children and women, and by the increased participation of women in the labour market. The United States of America recognised the many challenges Malta faces in dealing with a large number of seaborne irregular migrants, given its small size and large area of responsibility. It welcomed Malta’s commitment to its international obligations with respect to refugees and persons who qualify for humanitarian protection. It commended the decision to establish a detention service with suitably trained civilians as managers to help address the humanitarian needs of irregular migrants and work with NGOs to facilitate the provision of legal services. It welcomed Malta’s cooperation with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Recognising that irregular migrants from African countries arriving en route to Italy and elsewhere may be vulnerable to trafficking, it urged Malta to increase its efforts to eradicate trafficking in persons, including in taking steps to protect victims and through the vigorous prosecution of traffickers. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders In a joint statement with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Federatie van Netherlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie van Homoseksualiteit COC Nederland, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe) called for further measures to fight discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. It called for a policy ensuring that same-sex couples enjoy equal rights and obligations as opposite-sex couples; effective access to health advisory services for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; and legislation allowing the change of legal status of transgender persons following Maltese court decisions and the European Convention. Citing the Government’s indication that it would include sexual orientation and gender identity in human rights awareness raising campaigns, ILGA-Europe asked about the means by which this would be done and called for inclusion of civil society in the development, execution and evaluation of such campaigns. Commending Malta’s policy on sexual health and education, it recommended that sexual orientation and gender identity be explicitly included and that civil society be involved. Interfaith International indicated that Malta is a transit crossroads for potential immigrants to other countries in the European Union. It recalled that Argentina and Sweden had called upon Malta to bring its legislation concerning the detention of migrants into line with international standards. Interfaith International stated that Maltese law systematically places migrants, most of whom are asylum seekers, into detention centres for a maximum period of eighteen months in congested and unhygienic conditions. It recommended that appropriate measures be taken to deal with the distress of these vulnerable people. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomed in particular the recommendations regarding administrative detention of migrants and asylum seekers and access to justice and procedural safeguards for detained migrants. While welcoming Malta’s timely response to the recommendations, the ICJ regretted its rejection of recommendation 40 on the legal consequences of the use of the term “prohibited migrants”, in particular, administrative detention. The ICJ recalled that while Malta, due to its geographical position, faces large-scale migration, it must respect its international obligations in its migration policy, particularly those arising from international human rights and refugee law. It expressed concern at the automatic resort to administrative detention of asylum seekers and migrants and at the excessive length of such detention, even if entry was in contravention of domestic law. It urged revision of Maltese legislation and policy on detention of migrants and asylum seekers in accordance with the principle of proportionality. It recommended that Malta ensure that such detention is only resorted to where necessary, subject to a clear legal maximum duration and to regular judicial review. It urged for measures alternative to detention to be provided for in primary legislation, and that procedural safeguards are effectively guaranteed both to asylum seekers and all other migrants. In particular, it recommended that Malta provide free legal assistance, where necessary, to those subject to administrative detention or other measures, regardless of their status as asylum-seekers and in appeal and review proceedings. The ICJ urged Malta to improve conditions in its detention centres in accordance with the ICCPR and the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The delegation of Malta thanked the speakers for their additional comments and reiterated the State’s commitment to taking their views under serious consideration and to continue working to fulfil Malta’s obligations to the greatest extent possible. Citing comments relating to the situation of migrants, the delegation reiterated that Malta was committed to dealing with the issues bearing in mind the fullest respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals concerned. Malta was committed to ensuring the fulfilment of its international obligations. New Zealand The review of New Zealand was held on 7 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by New Zealand in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/NZL/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/NZL/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/NZL/3). At its 16th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on New Zealand (see section C below). The outcome of the review on New Zealand is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/8), together with the views of New Zealand concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/8/Add.1 and Corr.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The delegation recalled that New Zealand strongly supported the introduction of a Universal Periodic Review, which had lived up to its expectations. It also recalled that New Zealand’s national report had been the product of an open and consultative process, involving many groups both inside and outside government. The delegation indicated that New Zealand received 64 recommendations, and had given serious consideration to all of them. Response to all the recommendations had been lodged with the Council secretariat and published on the Council’s website. Of the 64 recommendations, New Zealand had accepted 33 unreservedly. An additional twelve had been agreed to with further discussion. A qualified response had been given to eleven recommendations, and only eight had been rejected. The delegation highlighted some of the significant features of New Zealand’s responses, indicating that many of the recommendations focused on c hallenging areas which the Government itself recognised as requiring further attention. These included the social disparities between non-Mori and Mori; the status of the Treaty of Waitangi in domestic legislation; family violence; equality of opportunit y; over-representation of Mori in the criminal justice system, and ratification of human rights treaties to which New Zealand is not party. The delegation explained that Mori were integral to the national identity of New Zealand and represented about 15 percent of the population. They acknowledged that there were a number of areas where improvements were needed, stressing that a wide range of measures to reduce social inequalities between Mori and non-Mori were underway. Several countries had recommende d that New Zealand give its support to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In May, the delegation had explained that New Zealand would like to move to support the Declaration, provided that it could protect its unique and advanced domestic framework for the resolution of issues related to indigenous rights. The Treaty settlement process recognised the interest s of Mori in relation to land and natural resources, and provided redress where these interests had been abrogated. New Zealand had some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world and the historical Treaty settlements process was an unparalleled system of redress, accepted both by Mori and non-Mori. The delegation indicated that New Zealand s position on the Declaration was still under active consideration by the Government. New Zealand recognised the concerns raised about the Foreshore a nd Seabed Act 2004, explaining that an expert and independent ministerial review panel had been established in March 2009 to review whether the Act effectively recognized and provided for customary and public interests in the coastal marine area. After an extensive consultation process, the panel reported to the Attorney-General and the Government was currently considering how to respond to its recommendations. The delegation indicated that New Zealand had not accepted the recommendation to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, ILO Convention 169 or the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but that it had undertaken to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. New Zealand was also examining which legislative reforms would be required to move towards ratifying the Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and was committed to working progressively towards a withdrawal of its few remaining reservations to human rights treaties. As stressed by the delegation, a number of recommendations called for New Zealand to ensure that its legislation and policies give effect to its human rights obligations. Noting that some rights were given effect in New Zealand through a variety of appropriate measures, the delegation stated that this was a subject under regular review, and that it accepted these recommendations. Regarding the Treaty of Waitangi, the delegation indicated that public discussion of its status certainly would continue, and that entrenchment as a constitutional norm was a possible outcome of that discussion, but not the only one. The delegation stressed that a new broad-based approach was developed to addressing the individual, family, community and justice sector factor s that contribute to offending and victimisation. Mindful of the over-representation of Mori in the criminal justice system as both offenders and victims, New Zealand was committed to addressing these factors in a concerted way. In the coming months, the Government would consider a number of priorities to address this issue. The Child and Family Protection Bill had been introduced into Parliament in August 2009, introducing changes to ensure that courts can act to protect children and families from all forms of violence and abuse. The Bill also contained the last legislative amendment required for New Zealand to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. To conclude, the delegation stressed that New Zealand had learnt from its involvement with the UPR, with a reinforcement of contacts with the wide human rights constituency and a greater understanding of New Zealand’s own human rights situation. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome While welcoming the endorsement by New Zealand of more than 90 per cent of the recommendations, Algeria regretted that its own recommendation to examine the possibility to adhere to the International Convention on the protection of the Rights of all Migrant workers and members of their families was not accepted. Algeria would have appreciated the endorsement by New Zealand of the Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. Algeria welcomed New Zealand’s agreement to consider the recommendations to take further measures to ensure full and consistent protection of human rights in domestic law and policies; and to take action to provide constitutional protection to national and international human rights instruments and standards. Algeria would have appreciated the acceptance of its recommendation to bring legislation in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Malaysia thanked New Zealand for its written responses to the recommendations and welcomed the acceptance by New Zealand of a number of recommendations, including those relating to efforts aimed at eradicating all form of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and Malaysia’s recommendation relating to trafficking in women and children and exploitation of women and girls in prostitution. Malaysia believed that New Zealand’s preparedness to address some of the issues related to intercultural and inter-faith relations would contribute positively to its effort in further instilling a culture of tolerance, interethnic and intercultural understanding in the country. Malaysia hoped that the Government will fully implement the recommendations and outcomes of the review. Sweden welcomed New Zealand’s advanced responses to the recommendations, and its support of Sweden s recommendation regarding violence against women. Sweden noted it was unclear to what extent the government had committed itself to recommendations that were only partially agreed to. Regarding the over-representation of Mori a nd Pacific persons in the criminal justice system, Sweden regretted that New Zealand could only agree in part to Sweden’s recommendations, and recommended continuing efforts to address this issue. Sweden expressed the hope that New Zealand would continue working on those problems and include all factors that could explain why certain groups were overrepresented. The Islamic Republic of Iran regretted that some recommendations including the ones put forward by Iran had not been accepted. Iran reiterated tha t there were still some concerns about the overall situation of human rights in New Zealand, in particular regarding the situation of Mori and Asian and Pacific minorities. It encouraged New Zealand to bring its domestic legislation, policies and practice s into full compliance with international law and to take serious efforts to further improve the rights of minorities and decrease disparities between Mori and non-Mori. Noting the poorly defined terms of the counter-terrorism legislation, it recommended that New Zealand ratify the International Convention on the protection of the Rights of all Migrant workers and members of their families and to review its position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United States commended New Zealand for accepting, in whole or in part, most of the recommendations. It noted New Zealand’s intention to consider accession to additional human rights instruments, and its determination to protect the rights of minorities and indigenous persons. It appreciated New Zealand’s commitment to combating human trafficking, and welcomed the acceptance of the recommendation to record and document cases of trafficking in women and children as well as the exploitation of migrant women and girls in prostitution and to share information on trafficking cases as appropriate within the region. The United States strongly urged New Zealand to consider including domestic trafficking crimes within the scope of its anti-trafficking law. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders The New Zealand Human Rights Commission appreciated the State’s active engagement with the UPR. It emphasised the importance of action on seven priority areas identified by the Government, including implementation of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; more systematic incorporation of international human rights obligations, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, into domestic legislation, policies and practices; further consideration of the status of the Treaty of Waitangi; and action on all forms of unlawful discrimination and socio-economic disparities. It indicated that stronger responses to recommendations on gender equality and the pay gap would have been welcomed. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom urged New Zealand to ratify the International Convention on the protection of the Rights of all Migrant workers and members of their families, ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and to announce full support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It reiterated the recommendations urging New Zealand to begin a process of constitutional change to give full effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. It urged new Zealand to develop alternatives to imprisonment, to reconsider the pending legislation which would lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12, to clarify its response to the recent public referendum on Section 59 of the Crimes Act, to work towards full gender pay equity and gender equality in decision-making, and to increase efforts to reduce violence against women. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network welcomed New Zealand’s articulation of the significant steps to treat lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people with equal dignity and respect and to provide equal recognition to same-sex partners. It urged the Government to address remaining areas of inequality, such as in the area of parenting. It commended the 2008 report of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission on discrimination experienced by transgender people, and asked the Government for an update on its position. It recommended including gender identity and expression in human rights legislation and that the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity be applied as a guide, that the Government support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that it enhance the constitutional status of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Indigenous World Association appreciated the Government’s constructive approach to the UPR process, marking a positive change from its previous approach of discrediting much international human rights oversight. It expressed concern at the rejection of recommendations to ratify international treaties. It strongly recommended support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and robust constitutional protection of the rights in the Treaty of Waitangi and the Declaration, including its domestic treaty settlements policy. It urged the Council to continue applying pressure on New Zealand to meet its treaty obligations and act on special procedures’ recommendations when these relate to Mori. Amnesty International called for clear and unambiguous support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for the Government to reflect its provisions in domestic legislation. Amnesty welcomed New Zealand s acceptance of recommendat ions relating to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It recommended ensuring that new legislation fully protects the human rights of Mori and enshrines the principles of recognition of customary rights, due process, good faith, and compensation. It called for a mendment to the Corrections Act 2004 to require that conditions in privatized prisons comply with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, for the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and for greater recognition of economic, social and cultural rights in domestic legislation. It welcomed the commitment to ensure regular consultation with civil society in the follow up to the UPR. The Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims welcomed New Zealand’s signing of human rights treaties and efforts to improve the justice system. It called on the Government to address the conditions of indigenous people and minorities, and to concentrate on the layers of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance against migrants and migrant workers. It cited social inequalities, including gender inequalities, in job opportunities and in aspects of the criminal prosecution system. It called on the Government to strengthen the national legislative framework on the promotion of human rights and in combating domestic violence. The Indian Council of South America commended New Zealand on its constructive participation in the UPR, but added that any attempt to reduce or negate international obligations was unacceptable. Reduction or negation of already accepted international obligations with regards to indigenous peoples through politicisation and selective application and implementation of rights was certainly not a best practice. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The delegation of New Zealand indicated that most responses to issues raised had been provided in its introductory statement, in the national report, as well as in documents A/HRC/12/8 and Add.1 and Corr. 1. It wished however to provide some additional responses. It explained that New Zealand had not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant workers and Members of their Families, but had already in place a range of laws protecting all workers, including migrant workers, on the basis of equality. New Zealand had not endorsed the outcome of the Durban Review Conference because it had not participated in that Conference. Regarding the assessment made by a participant that anti-terrorism legislation contained poorly defined terms, New Zealand stressed that the definition set out in the counter terrorism legislation was extraordinarily clear and specific. New Zealand had adopted a definition of trafficki ng that was in accordance with international law. Violence against women and the over-representation of Mori and Pacific Islanders in the criminal justice system were a matter of strong concern to New Zealand, and a number of processes were underway to im prove the situation. The delegation concluded by thanking all participants to the review. Afghanistan The review of Afghanistan was held on 7 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Afghanistan in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/AFG/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/AFG/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/AFG/3). At its 16th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on SuR (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Afghanistan is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/9), together with the views of Afghanistan concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/9/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome H.E. Dr. Mohammad Qasim Hashimzai, Deputy Minister of Justice of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan noted that the UPR was a productive experience for Afghanistan. Afghanistan supported most of the recommendations made during the interactive dialogue and various ministries and institutions had already taken a number of initiatives which was an indication of the firm political will on the part of the Government to consolidate and improve human rights in the country. Afghanistan had also agreed to further consider a number of other recommendations. The response to which, after consulting with relevant ministries and departments, is contained in an addendum to the report of the Working Group. Measures taken by Afghanistan since May 2009, included: Parliament’s current review of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the ratification of ILO Conventions Nos. 144 and 182, as well as of the Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions; the completion of the initial report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Serious attention to the report’s findings and recommendations would facilitate securing a better condition of children’s rights in Afghanistan. Work began in early August to prepare the initial report to CEDAW for planned completion by July 2010. The report would also provide a better understanding of women’s condition and their needs in Afghanistan and help in better addressing the issue of women’s rights in the country. Afghanistan indicated that it needed to take steps for the review and revision of 700 laws currently in force to ensure that they are in keeping with the Constitution and international agreements to which it is a signatory. Since May 2009 Afghanistan has passed a number of laws, including: the Law on Elimination of Violence against Women, which makes violence a crime whether committed at home or elsewhere and prescribes sentences for its perpetrators and is in line with CEDAW; the Shia Personal Status Law, which was reviewed in the light of the Constitution and adjusted in accordance with Afghanistan’s obligations towards international human rights conventions; the new Media Law of Afghanistan, which was published in the official gazette and guarantees freedom of speech and publication, the recent implementation of a new Police Law, which incorporates all the principles of human rights in the performances of police, the Law on the Establishment of the Commission to Supervise the Implementation of the Constitution, which was published in the official gazette and finalization of the draft of the new Code of Criminal Procedure encompassing the principle of fair trial and rectifying the loopholes and shortcomings which existed in the Interim Code of Criminal Procedure to standards and rules. In addition, Afghanistan carried out a number of institutional reform programmes. Reference was made to the following: a) resources were raised for the establishment of the Human Rights Unit in the Ministry of Justice with the assistance of UNAMA; b) implementation of merit-based prison reform aiming at improving the salaries of personnel to a level for meeting the essential needs of staff and reducing corruption, resulting in better performances especially in the area of the implementation of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners: c) launching of the joint “Peace through Justice Program” aiming to promote human rights awareness activities and training for communities and local justice officials at the district level across Afghanistan; d) the regular holding of sessions of the Justice Sector Coordination Commission in the Supreme Court for coordinating human rights activities; e) establishment of the first core working group to set up a task force on formal justice relations with an informal justice/traditional dispute resolution mechanism. A template for national policy has been formulated. The ultimate aim of which is to prevent the abuse of human rights values by informal justice, especially against women: f) the setting up of the High Office for Oversight of the Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, which has started working and asked all high-ranking government officials, judges and law enforcement bodies to register their assets and show how they were acquired. Afghanistan noted that despite all these efforts and commitments on the part of the Government in fulfilling its obligations vis-à-vis the principles of human rights, Afghanistan still faced a number of huge challenges. Top amongst them were terrorism, extremism and narcotics. Afghanistan has long argued that these challenges are interconnected with regional and international dimensions and that poverty and corruption have also made it difficult to tackle these challenges easily. The issue of aid effectiveness, especially in the justice sector programs, has also caused concern for the Government and the international community. Afghanistan concluded that the implementation of programmes and reforms required the cooperation and participation of all concerned governmental bodies, civil society institutions and also the direct cooperation of the international community. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria highlighted the will of Afghanistan to improve the human rights situation, as evidenced by the majority of recommendations accepted. Algeria referred to concrete measures already taken by Afghanistan to meet its commitments, including the ratification of the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the completion of its initial report under CRC and the adoption of several domestic laws. Algeria urged the international community to support the Government’s efforts and encouraged Afghanistan to promote transparency in its electoral system and fight against drug-related corruption. Malaysia was pleased that Afghanistan has accepted a large number of recommendations, in particular those relating to the improvement of the economic and social situation of its citizens. Malaysia highlighted Afghanistan’s preparedness to strengthen interaction with international human rights mechanism and its promise to continue to engage with them constructively. It hoped that the Government will uphold its commitment to democratic ideals and fully implement the recommendations and outcomes of the review. Qatar noted that Afghanistan’s acceptance of 96 recommendations demonstrates the importance it attributes to cooperation with the United Nations human rights system. Qatar also noted the establishment of institutions and bodies to protect citizen’s rights and commented on the security challenges and constraints, which hinder the exercise of rights by Afghans and have a negative effect on the economic and social situation of the country. It welcomed the presidential elections. Pakistan highlighted Afghanistan’s endorsement of most of the recommendations and acknowledged the Government’s limitations to provide basic services due to long-standing insecurity and armed conflict. It welcomed measures towards the ratification of human rights treaties and institutional reform, and referred to the encouraging promotion of women’s participation in the life of the country. Pakistan expressed confidence in the Government’s commitment to meet current challenges and take steps to improve the human rights situation in Afghanistan by involving all stakeholders. Pakistan called on the international community to support efforts, including the creation of an enabling environment for improving the human rights system in Afghanistan. Russian Federation noted that the human rights situation in Afghanistan remains complex and ambiguous. While progress has been made in a number of areas, there is an urgent need to overcome serious problems, such as weak health and education systems and ensuring gender equality. It highlighted Afghanistan’s constructive approach to the UPR process and stated that the consolidation of democracy should not be hindered by destructive Taliban activities or damage to the civilian population from many years of war. Indonesia commended Afghanistan for its efforts to implement human rights standards, while acknowledging the ongoing difficulties faced by the country. It commended in particular, the establishment of the Commission for the Elimination of Violence against Women, the strengthening of the work of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and the adult literacy courses for women. Indonesia supported the on-going efforts to achieve political stability as one of the prerequisites for achieving sustainable economic development and social progress. United Arab Emirates noted the efforts of Afghanistan to improve living standards, by, inter alia, fighting against poverty, improving health and hygiene, and establishing programmes in rural areas. It welcomed the efforts to improve human rights in general and especially to promote the rights of women and children. It noted that as Afghanistan seeks to implement the recommendations accepted it needs to be encouraged in its efforts to promote economic and social development in this difficult transition period. India noted that despite decades of conflict and turmoil, Afghanistan has been achieving a remarkable transformation in its polity in the last few years. The establishment of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the adoption of the Afghan National Development Strategy are particularly noteworthy. India also commended progress in the realization of the MDGs, as well as recent developments, such as the ratification of ILO Convention No. 144 and the adoption of the law on the elimination of violence against women. India reiterated its commitment to the development of Afghanistan. Sweden welcomed that Afghanistan accepted its recommendation to take all steps necessary to combat discrimination and violence against women. Sweden also appreciated its commitment to make further efforts to ensure that the status of freedom of expression is brought in line with international obligations. Noting that irregularities existing in the justice system and that there have been cases where detainees have been found innocent, Sweden encouraged Afghanistan to reconsider its position on the death penalty and move to support a re-introduction of the moratorium on executions. Bahrain noted with pleasure the number of recommendations endorsed by Afghanistan, which was a clear reflection of the country’s interest in promoting human rights. Bahrain also welcomed the submission of the initial report under the CRC. Bahrain referred to the efforts made in all human rights areas, in particular in protecting women and adopting the law on violence against women. While welcoming the decision of the Afghan Government to accept most of the recommendations, Hungary expressed concern about its refusal of the moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Hungary also stressed that further steps are necessary to prevent the recruitment of children and the use of child combatants by the Taliban. Hungary recommended the continuation of the revision of the Shia Personal Status Law and its harmonization with international obligations. While emphasizing that progress in the presidential elections is a crucial step towards democratization, Hungary remained concerned about the large number of irregularities reported to the Electoral Complaints Commission and urged the Government to take all necessary measures to remedy the situation. United States of America commended Afghanistan’s efforts to enhance the capacity of the national human rights institutions. It welcomed the adoption of national strategies and policies to support human rights and encouraged Afghanistan to fully implement them. It was encouraged by the signature of the comprehensive domestic violence law, but shared concerns about flaws in the recently published Shi’a Family Law. It referred to concerns about intimidation and violence against journalists and limitations on freedom of expression, and encouraged Afghanistan to pass a media law. It also supported recommendations to ensure an effective, independent and impartial judicial system that upholds human rights. Kyrgyzstan closely followed the progress achieved in Afghanistan, given the country’s importance to the prosperity and security of the region. Kyrgyzstan noted that despite political and economic and social difficulties, Afghanistan together with the international community have made important achievements in creating a political system, ensuring legal and judicial reform and adopting laws in keeping with human rights standards. Kyrgyzstan noted the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission’s role in monitoring human rights and the work of the national mechanism in monitoring the observance of the Constitution, laws and human rights obligations and to follow-up on possible violations. Kyrgyzstan welcomed the ratification of human rights treaties and adoption of new laws designed to protect human rights in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan noted that Afghanistan’s review provided a better understanding of the challenges facing the country. It welcomed the progress achieved in Afghanistan and supported the recommendations regarding the elimination of extreme poverty and hunger, access to primary education and the promotion of women’s rights. Kazakhstan recalled that the achievement of the MDGs should be a priority and that Afghanistan should continue its strong partnership with the international community, which in turn should bear in mind its moral obligation to help Afghanistan. Kazakhstan referred to its valuable contribution to development efforts in Afghanistan. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) urged the Government to take practical steps to ensure women’s rights to life and security, education, employment, access to justice and political participation. AIHRC called on the Government to prioritize programmes creating employment opportunities so as to prevent displacement and risky migration. AIHRC urged the Government to respect the rights to freedom of speech and expression, protection of the life of journalists, fighting corruption and ending impunity, promotion of good governance. AIHRC urged all concerned to fully respect international humanitarian law and refrain from actions causing civilian casualties. It also expected the Government to review and amend domestic law in compliance with international human rights law; and to value and positively respond to the recommendations of human rights civil society organizations. AIHRC urged the Government to invite special rapporteurs to Afghanistan. AIHRC requested political and financial support from the Government and state institutions, which would enable the AIHRC to fulfil its mandate. International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-EUROPE) and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network in a joint statement expressed regret that Afghanistan rejected recommendations to either abolish or reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty. They noted the laws criminalizing same sex relations between consenting adults and the Sharia law providing for the death penalty for consenting homosexual sex. They called on the Government to repeal these laws in accordance with Afghanistan’s international human rights obligations. Al-Hakim Foundation (AHF) appreciated the efforts made by the Government in the area of human rights and the support provided to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and other institutions such as the Commissions to combat corruption, to reform civil administration, and to eliminate discrimination against women. AHF emphasized that the role of civil society should be strengthened. AFH expressed concern over a worsening of terrorist acts calling on the international community, in cooperation with human rights institutions and other governments in the region, to put an end to this phenomenon. AHF also emphasized the importance of the dissemination of human rights principles throughout Afghanistan in schools and in women’s associations and through relevant programmes. Amnesty International (AI) welcomed Afghanistan’s support to strengthening the capacity to implement the National Development Strategy. AI urged the Government to safeguard the independence and work of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission; and fully implement the 2005 Action Plan for Peace, Justice and Reconciliation. AI expressed concern that the passing of the “Amnesty law” has undermined the 2005 Action Plan and called on the Government to undertake independent and judicial investigations into all credible allegations of serious human rights abuses; establish a truth-seeking mechanism to document past human rights abuses; repeal the Amnesty Law; and bar those suspected of war crimes, crimes against humanity or serious human rights abuses from holding government posts. AI noted that Afghan women and girls continue to encounter discriminatory laws, policies, and practices and to face endemic domestic violence, trafficking, forced marriages and their use as currency in the settlement of disputes. AI also stated that women victims and defendants are discriminated against in both the formal and informal justice systems. AI called for prompt, impartial and effective investigation of all reports of violence against women, ensure that those responsible are brought to justice and the victims granted reparations and that women be granted unqualified equality with men in law and in practice. International Pen expressed satisfaction that the Afghan Government would develop strategies to protect freedom of expression through legislation and adoption of new policies for the protection, support and monitoring of human rights. It expressed concern about the recent decline in press freedom, particularly the growing violence against journalists. International Pen was also concerned about the existence of “blasphemy” laws, under which a number of writers and publishers had been charged and imprisoned and sentenced to death and indicated that it would continue to call for the release of those imprisoned under such legislation. Human Rights Watch (HRW) underlined the need for the Government to make girls’ education a priority; strengthen measures to prevent violence against women; promote awareness-raising on issues such as child marriage; and avoid entrenching in the law discriminatory practices against women such as the Shia Personal Status Law, which in its amended form allegedly included many egregious articles. HRW noted that the Government committed itself to a wide range of measures under the 2005 Action Plan on Peace, Justice and Reconciliation, many of which did not require judicial action such as according dignity to victims and vetting human rights abusers from positions of power. HRW stated that the rule of law needed significant attention, including strengthening respect for human rights by the police, and justice sectors, and building the institutional capacity of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, while expressing the view that a comprehensive reform of these areas would involve greater transparency, accountability and oversight of the appointments process. HRW reported that the recent elections were deeply flawed, including the low female turnout and widespread use of women’s polling stations and voter registration cards for fraudulent purposes. HRW expressed regret about the rejection by Afghanistan of the recommendation that called for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, noting that legal experts and human rights organizations had long expressed concern that international due process and fair trial standards were generally not met in such cases. The Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims, while commending the actions taken by the Afghan Government, called for more extensive participation of women in the administrative and judicial system, promotion of access of women to employment, participation of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in legislation proceedings and setting up of comprehensive guidelines for the elimination of gender discrimination, particularly in employment. It also called for measures to protect women, such as practical solutions to eradicate violence against women, a review of text books in schools for the purpose of disseminating information on women’s rights, and increased public awareness on action against domestic violence. Noting that war and conflict in the past three decades have weakened the political, social and economic structure, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) viewed the setting up of human rights mechanisms and institutions in Afghanistan’s national development strategy as a step forward. ODVV noted that war, terrorism and extremism produce violence and insecurity and expressed the hope, inter alia, that Afghanistan would cope with these problems in the near future. Institute for Women Studies and Research (IWSR) commended the efforts of the Afghan Government to promote and improve human rights, despite the problems and security priorities existing in the country, which is still in a conflict situation. IWSR noted that the situation of women and children is increasingly serious and their fundamental rights are threatened. This situation increased the responsibility of the international community in properly monitoring the rights of Afghan women and children, promoting their access to equal rights and social security. IWSR believed that if the promised aid and assistance from the international community were paid on time this would improve the situation of the Afghan people, particularly the women and children. Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) expressed concern that arbitrary arrest and detention of journalist by the police and other official security agencies are widespread. IHRC was also concerned that Afghanistan women’s health rights appear to be neglected, that cultural practices hinder women’s access to these rights and that maternal mortality is one of the highest in the world. IHRC noted a number of human rights challenges facing Afghanistan, including internal struggle in the process of democratization, gender equality, empowerment of women and the fight against terrorism. IHRC strongly urged the Government to ensure, inter alia, that there is no violation of the right to freedom of expression and the prompt and impartial inquiry of all cases of maternal mortality. International Institute of Peace (IIP) and Commission to Study the Organisation of Peace noted that the Taliban regime denied women access to education, health and employment. Abduction of women, rape, infliction of stoning, lashing and other forms of inhuman punishment became commonplace. IIP blamed those who, inter alia, took on the responsibility of grooming and indoctrinating the Taliban and providing them with weapons. IIP expressed the view that those arguing for negotiations and a deal with the Taliban must be prepared, inter alia, to bear the responsibility for the oppression that would be unleashed upon the women of Afghanistan, if Taliban dominated rule became a reality. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review H.E. Dr. Mohammad Qasim Hasimzai, Deputy Minister of Justice of Afghanistan, in his concluding remarks, thanked all participants for their additional comments. The Government of Afghanistan was committed to fulfilling all its obligations in the field of human rights in light of its Constitution, including with respect to the implementation of recommendations it accepted, under the UPR process. Regarding women’s rights, it was reiterated that Afghanistan had ratified CEDAW and had in place a law to protect women from violence, in conformity with CEDAW, in order to give women an appropriate share in the Government and social life of Afghanistan. Regarding the recently held Presidential elections in Afghanistan, it was pointed out that these were a significant achievement despite the problems facing the Government. A strong International Election Monitoring Group and a Complaint Commission were working in Afghanistan and their comments on the performance of the elections were awaited and any allegations in that regard were to be dealt with by them. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan were a concern for both the Government and the international community and they had reached an agreement to reduce civilian casualties to a minimum. However, opposition groups had been using civilians and their villages as a shelter, which was an issue that also needed to be considered. Reference was made to the concerns expressed about the Shia Personal Status law in the May session of the Working Group. This law was reviewed, on the basis of the order of the President of Afghanistan and most of the controversial provisions which were not in line with the Constitution or international commitments were removed, and then published. The path for further amendment was open, as one particular provision of the law had raised concern. Afghanistan’s commitment to international conventions was firm. Finally, Afghanistan expressed its sincere appreciation to the Human Rights Council, its President and all delegations, as well as to OHCHR in connection with the UPR process and for the promotion and protection of human rights in Afghanistan. Chile The review of Chile was held on 8 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Chile in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/CHL/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/CHL/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/CHL/3). At its 16th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Chile (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Chile is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/10), together with the views of Chile concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group. 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome H.E. Mr. Carlos Portales, Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations Office at Geneva expressed Chile’s appreciation for the questions and recommendations made by fifty one states from all regions, which allowed increased efficiency in the implementation of their commitments. Chile had already adopted several measures responding to the concerns expressed during its review. Chile reported that last 29 June, the Government had deposited the instrument of ratification of the Rome Statute. The Congress had also recently approved the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The Headquarters Agreement for the Establishment of an OHCHR Regional Office for South America had also been recently signed, and Chile was signing the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this week. Chile’s Congress had recently approved the establishment of a National Human Rights Institute. The corresponding bill also provided for the reinstatement of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture for a period of six months. In order to promote the effective implementation of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a workshop was held in August, with a view to identifying the best alternatives for the creation of a national mechanism for the effective prevention of torture. Chile announced that a legal procedure will be initiated to amend Article 150A of the Criminal Procedure Code towards adjusting the definition of the crime of torture to the terms contained in the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Chile also said that a bill would be submitted to restrict the competence of military courts and reform the Military Justice Code in accordance with international human rights standards. Chile said the Government was working on a National Human Rights Plan in order to mainstream the promotion and protection of human rights. ILO Convention 169 had entered into force in September, and actions aimed at implementing its provisions had been initiated. The procedure to regulate the consultation and participation of indigenous peoples on issues affecting them directly is being finalized. With regard to the recommendations which are still under consideration, Chile reported that, as far as the domestic legal order in Chile is concerned, the Constitution and civil laws explicitly identify the family as the core unit of society. This recognition implies the protection of all types of families existing in Chile, whether single parental, expanded, recomposed, or nucleus. Chile also considered that the National Prosecutor’s Office policy strictly abides by the principle of legality. Thus, exhaustive criminal investigations are carried out under the control of supervisory judges. Likewise, freedom of expression was protected by the Constitution and reporters and film makers enjoyed maximum freedom in the exercise of their respective professions. Chile explained that the Antiterrorist Law is meant to punish grave criminal offenses causing public disturbance and does in no way apply to particular categories of individuals or social groups. It reported that democratic governments have not applied the anti-terrorist law to social demands or claims of the indigenous populations. During the period 1999 until 2009, this special law was invoked in only 16 cases, several of which related to accused that do not pertain to any indigenous community. Chile added that, in the last four years, this law was applied to individuals of indigenous origin with regard to conducts of the aforementioned nature in only two cases. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria expressed appreciation for Chile’s acceptance of the majority of the recommendations received during the presentation of its national report. It commended Chile for its commitment to eliminating discrimination against women and the measures taken to eliminate obstacles that prevent them from accessing the labour market. Algeria welcomed Chile’s acceptance of its recommendation to include in its legislation the principle of equal pay for equal work. It was encouraged by Chile’s readiness to guarantee access to education for all children, especially those from marginalised communities, such as refugee children and children whose families live in rural areas or below the poverty line. Morocco thanked Chile for accepting the majority of recommendations made during its review, including those made by Morocco. It welcomed Chile’s prompt response in deciding to establish a national human rights institution. Morocco was convinced that Chile would continue strengthening its reforms of the education system for the promotion of human rights, incorporating them into school curricula. Regarding Chile’s migration policy, the response received confirms its commitment to the rights of migrants, placing them at the core of its deliberations on the new law on migration. Morocco noted with satisfaction Chile’s efforts in fighting human trafficking, as well as its promotion of non-discrimination. Colombia welcomed Chile’s diligence and attention given to questions and recommendations made during the review. Colombia congratulated Chile on the voluntary commitments made, expressing its determination to draw up a national human rights plan and to hold broad consultations with civil society to this end. Colombia also valued the standing invitation Chile has extended to the special procedures of the Human Rights Council. It noted the voluntary commitments made, and the recommendations accepted, demonstrated Chile’s firm commitment in the promotion and protection of human rights. Mexico congratulated Chile for the recent ratification of the Rome Statute and the approval of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance by Congress. Mexico welcomed the announcement of the future ratification of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the progress made towards the establishment of the national mechanism for follow-up to Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Mexico appreciated the information provided on the progress made in the preparation of a national human rights plan, and on the implementation of the ILO Convention 169. It encouraged Chile’s efforts to move towards protecting the human rights of indigenous peoples, and the measures in place to protect the human rights of its entire population. Nicaragua congratulated Chile for progress in the implementation of the recommendations made during its review. It welcomed the recent initiative of establishing a National Human Rights Institute, thus institutionalizing its own system to promote and protect human rights. It encouraged Chile to continue pursuing the approval and implementation of the various legislative initiatives it has submitted to Congress. Hungary welcomed Chile’s decision to accept or answer all of the recommendations. It also commended the creation of a National Human Rights Institute, and said it was pleased to note that Chile had launched a National Human Rights Plan. It welcomed the ratification of the Rome Statute, the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and ILO Convention 169. Hungary requested an update on the drafting of the amendment of the criminal law on combating trafficking in human beings. It also requested more information on the measures Chile intends to take to guarantee the full realisation of the rights of refugees. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network welcomed Chile’s acceptance of recommendations 27, 28 and 29, pursuant to which Chile agreed to implement initiatives to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibit by law discrimination on these grounds, and follow the Yogyakarta Principles. It requested more information on how Chile plans to implement these commitments. It regretted Chile’s rejection of two recommendations dealing with access to safe therapeutic abortion, noting this rejection limited the ability of civil society to engage the government on how best to address them. It encouraged Chile to involve civil society in the follow-up to the recommendations. Amnesty International welcomed the ratification of the Rome Statute and the approval by Congress of the creation of a National Human Rights Institution; it called on Chile to ensure the institution’s independence in its powers and functions. It also reiterated its call for Chile’s to nullify the 1978 Amnesty Law. Welcoming Chile’s support of recommendations related to the human rights of Indigenous Peoples, it reiterated concerns that the Anti-Terrorism Law may be applied in a discriminatory manner, in view of recent violent incidents. It regretted that Chile has not supported recommendations to bring its abortion law in line with its human rights obligations and to review its legislation criminalizing the termination of pregnancies in all circumstances. It called for Chile to reconsider these recommendations. France Libertés: Fondation Danielle Mitterrand noted that the criminalisation of demonstrations by the Mapuche constituted an abuse, illustrated by the implementation of the Anti-Terrorist Law and the expulsion of journalists reporting on the conflict between Mapuche communities and the Government. Despite a land restitution policy, lands are threatened by major hydro-electric, mining and forestry projects. Thus the access of the Mapuche to resources, including water, has been compromised. The application of the Anti-Terrorist Law leads to a loss of guarantees to a fair trial, maintains much of the investigation in secret, imposes preventive imprisonment, and applies harsher sentences to the ones the Criminal Code would apply in similar circumstances. It called on the Council to ensure that Chile no longer criminalises the demands of indigenous communities, and that it guarantees conditions for dialogue. Society for Threatened Peoples noted that Chile defines itself as a unitary country, thus not recognizing the existence and singularities of people such as the Mapuche. Contrary to Slovenia’s recommendations on the implementation of bilingual intercultural programmes, Chile persists in promoting cultural uniformity based on a European ethnocentric vision. The constitutional reform bill currently considered by the parliament was not discussed with indigenous peoples. Chile also denies the Mapuche their rights to their ancestral lands. Indigenous peoples are rarely consulted on matters that concern them, whether these are development projects or infrastructure. In Arauco, 620 projects have not been concluded for lack of funding. Chile has voted in favour of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but criminalizes Mapuche leaders that promote respect for free determination, autonomy and self-government. Conectas Direitos Humanos welcomed the recommendations made to Chile during its review, drawing attention to the difficulties that Chile has shown in implementing recommendations from other human rights instruments. The judicial power and Congress resist incorporating international human rights standards in their work. Despite the authorities agreement to create a body representing the three political powers and NGOs to follow up on the recommendations of the review the proposal hasn’t come into effect yet. They called on the Government to convene public authorities and NGOs to create such a follow-up mechanism. International Association Against Torture stated, in connection with recommendations requesting the investigation of alleged cases of torture and to bring perpetrators to justice, that it is common for raids of Mapuche communities to be carried out without a legal warrant, and with threats by the police. The police continue to inflict cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on detainees, and peaceful protests are continuously repressed. Saying that in the last six years, six Mapuches have been murdered by the police, and the identified perpetrators have not been convicted, it highlighted the Czech Republic’s recommendation to provide human rights education and practices to security officers, including the Gendarmería. Noting that Algeria had recommended poverty alleviation programmes, it said development projects lacked funding. Of the millions of hectares taken from the Mapuche, only 140 thousand have been returned. The Government does not acknowledge Mapuches’ identity, social organization, or authorities. Comisión Jurídica para el Autodesarrollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos referred to recommendation 36 requesting Chile to take further steps to fight human trafficking, taking into account the countries of origin. It explained that under a 1883 treaty, the provinces of Tacna and Arica remained under Chile’s Government pending a plebiscite, but the plebiscite never took place. Instead, Tacna became Peruvian territory and Arica, Chilean territory in 1929. Thousands of Peruvians, victims of trafficking for labour purposes, illegally reside in Chile and are exposed to violence and does not enjoy any protection. It requested support from the State to study the causes for the above, given the fact that the Acha prison holds many Peruvians arrested at the border. Statistics also denoted a high percentage of sexual trafficking at the border. Organisation for Defending Victims of Violence stated that Chile’s ratification of several international human rights instruments, and the investigation and follow-up of grave human rights violations in the past, show Chile’s determination to promote human rights in the country. The processing of human rights shortfalls mentioned in the report, such as the rights of indigenous peoples particularly in the area of land ownership, and the lack of a national human rights institution based on the Paris Principles will strengthen the human rights situation in Chile. Real signs of improvement are seen in the conditions of indigenous peoples, victims of violence and past abuses, and the institutional promotion of human rights in the country. Indian Council of South America commended Chile for its support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes, inter alia, treaty rights. It cited reports by Mapuche representatives that the historical treaties signed with Spain and Chile are the root of conflict, leading to detention and imprisonment, even when claims are raised in a non-violent manner. Referring to paragraph 47 of the report where Chile stated its anti-terrorist laws cannot be applied on the basis of ethnic, religious or political considerations, it noted reports of Indigenous Peoples in prison dating back to the Pinochet regime, and supported paragraphs 68, 69 and 70, which call for Chile to solve the problems of Indigenous Peoples and ensure that the Anti-Terrorism Act does not undermine their rights, especially those related to their non-violent claims. It called upon Chile to review its treatment of Indigenous Peoples. International Commission of Jurists recalled recommendations made regarding the need to review legislation related to military justice which presented serious incompatibilities with international standards. Chile should study the enactment of a new Military Justice Code which excludes the jurisdiction of military tribunals over civilians. Reforms should ensure that military tribunals meet the requirements of independence and impartiality stipulated by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The military jurisdiction also supposes that judges are officials in active service, subject to hierarchical subordination and due obedience. It expressed concern over the existence of a personal jurisdiction for members of the armed forces, as this privilege is linked to the military nature of the offender or the victim and not to the offence. It urged the Council to include these recommendations and supervise their implementation along with the other recommendations accepted. Conscience and Peace Tax International commented on paragraph 53 of the report, noting that while it is commendable that relatives of victims of past human rights violations are exempt from military service this is not a question of conscientious objection. It noted that Chile has been able to fill its military service needs with volunteers, but all young men are registered for military service and the law permits the military to select them for obligatory service without any recognition of conscientious objectors. The refusal of illegal orders is also an obligation, not a matter of conscientious objection, but any change in giving protection to service personnel who attempt to refuse illegal orders should be commended. Federation for Women and Family Planning regretted Chile’s decision to reject recommendations in paragraphs 24(b) and 37(a). The failure to implement these recommendations and to ensure that women and girls have access to safe therapeutic abortion violates Chile’s international human rights obligations. With respect to the implementation of recommendation 27, it urged Chile to, inter alia; provide protection for transsexuals, travesties and women engaged in sex work; implement sensitisation programmes for State officers on gender identity; create employment policies for transsexual individuals; and that gender identity be established following a protocol for care that does not violate transsexual individuals’ rights or dignity. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review On the issue of reproductive health, Chile explained that, since the sixties Chile had made considerable advances in terms of maternal and child health care, by having set up a free public healthcare network, based on primary attention by doctors and other professionals throughout the country. For this reason, Chile is among the few countries that are likely to reach the Millennium Development Goals of reducing maternal mortality. Obstetric care, including attention to complications resulting from abortion, is provided in hospitals regardless of their cause. Chile noted its family planning programme was in place since 1967, which provided free contraceptives to women. Emergency contraceptives are available under the express instruction of the Health Ministry, and are handed out free by most municipal offices and NGOs. The Government has recently sent a draft bill which would make these dispositions by the Health Ministry mandatory. Women can also freely access sterilization, without requiring the husband’s authorization, if globally accepted conditions are first met. Forced sterilization is illegal. Induced abortion is forbidden by legislation, but the idea of reintroducing therapeutic abortion is part of the ongoing electoral discussion. The Health Ministry has also instructed health services that though abortion is illegal, no confessions should be extracted from women that require medical care because of an abortion, especially when such confession is required as a precondition for medical assistance. Regarding indigenous peoples, Chile explained that the Government is seeking to increase their participation in decision making. Over the years, a range of goals had been achieved, such as the approval in Senate of the proposal to constitutionally recognize indigenous peoples; the promulgation of a law relating to the maritime space for indigenous peoples; the incorporation of norms adopting the concept of interculturality in education. Chile explained that 650 thousand hectares had been transferred to indigenous communities since 1994. The Government had increased grants for indigenous students, and improved intercultural health programmes for indigenous peoples. It had built intercultural kindergartens, and developed a rural infrastructure programme for indigenous communities to have better roads. Indigenous peoples were also granted housing subsidies. Despite progress in these areas, Chile had seen increased conflict, especially regarding demand for land. The Government regretted the death of Mapuche activist Jaime Mendoza Collío in August, a death which was condemned by the President. Chile informed a Police officer was being processed. Chile informed that the Government had recently appointed the Presidency Minister as coordinator for indigenous issues, and will table a project in Congress to restructure the National Indigenous Corporation. There will be complimentary norms adopted to regulate the handing-over of land, to ensure there is no abuse or speculation. A Council of Indigenous Peoples was being established as an independent body representing the different groups. Chad The review of Chad was held on 5 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Chad in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/TCD/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/TCD/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/TCD/3). At its 17th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Chad (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Chad is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/5), together with the views of Chad concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group. 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The head of the delegation of Chad, Mr. Abderaman Djasnabaille, Minister for Human Rights and for the Promotion of Liberties, thanked the African group for its goodwill and support in making the report of the Working Group (WG) on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Chad available. In that regard, the delegation of Chad expressed surprise and frustration at the difficulties to get the report translated despite its cooperation. Chad also wished to thank the Troika members, France, Slovenia and Zambia, and the Secretariat for the work done. Chad highlighted its full and transparent cooperation with Treaty Bodies through the six reports recently submitted to them. The Chad delegation provided information on the preparations for a national forum on human rights, which will be held in N’Djamena in November 2009, with the participation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Over one hundred-ten recommendations were formulated during the Universal Periodic Review of Chad in May 2009. Chad immediately accepted eighty-six recommendations; 14 recommendations were postponed for further consideration and consultations with all stakeholders. Chad underlined that it was not appropriate to consider the remaining recommendations as rejected; as a matter of fact, some of them were simply redundant, as they referred to matters on which legislative measures had already been adopted, while some others were related to matters that are presently being considered by appropriate national bodies and institutions. Chad noted that, among the authors of the postponed recommendations, the Netherlands formulated recommendations on gender, Spain and Mexico on death penalty, Switzerland on vulnerable groups, Côte d’Ivoire on peace, Denmark on improved access for the International Committee of the Red Cross to detention centres, specifically Korotoro. Canada, Norway and United Kingdom formulated recommendations on impunity and investigations and prosecution of those who commit crimes against women and children, and on child soldiers. The Czech Republic made a recommendation on the training for prison wardens, Egypt on the application of the Penal Code and its conformity with international human rights standards, and Japan on refugees and displaced persons. Chad stated that its replies to all questions are to be found in a document circulated to the Council. Real work was underway in Chad to make sure that all recommendations will be followed up in an operational manner and, it is expected that by the end of 2009 the first results should be visible. The constructive and interactive dialogue was much appreciated by Chad, which has received positive feedback about its approach to the Universal Periodic Review and its related action. Chad was also grateful for all forms of assistance that will help in the implementation of the commitments it has undertaken in the framework of the review. Chad’s presence demonstrated to what extent its Government, the President and the Prime Minister were in step with what was done by the Council. Taking into account the very particular situation of the country, including aggression from a neighbouring country and the civil war, Chad shall do everything in its power to ensure real human rights progress throughout the country. Chad drew the attention of the Council to initiatives such as the above-mentioned national forum on human rights, and to the implementation of the 13th August Agreement for the holding of legislative elections, which will be supervised by an independent national electoral commission composed by 15 members from the majority, 15 from the opposition and a president appointed by consensus. The holding of fair and free elections is a major advancement for the democracy in Chad. In its fight for universal human rights values, Chad called for peace, because human rights cannot fully be ensured and protected in a context of war, and it appealed to the international community to support its efforts for peace, human rights and democracy. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria congratulated Chad’s commitment for the promotion and protection of human rights. It welcomed Chad’s will, in line with Algeria’s recommendation, to pursue its efforts to strengthen the primacy of law and the respect for human rights, particularly by finalizing the reform process under way in the legislative, judicial and territorial administration areas. Algeria stressed that Chad’s efforts to guarantee the right to education for all citizens, despite its limited resources, are noteworthy, and renewed its appeal to the international community to provide Chad with the assistance it needs in this regard. Chad’s firm desire to promote and respect human rights, despite development and stability challenges, justifies the international community’s support to this country. Qatar noted that Chad’s acceptance of 86 recommendations made in the UPR WG reflected its determination to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms. In spite of limited resources and difficult political conditions, the Government has been able to make major progress to build a modern state, and promote and protect human rights, in particular the right to education. The Russian Federation noted that Chad’s constructive approach manifested through the acceptance of 86 recommendations at the fifth session of the UPR WG. It welcomed the intention of the Ministry of Human Rights and Promotion of Liberties to organize a forum on human rights. It expressed perplexity regarding the fact that the Secretariat did not ensure a translation in the official UN languages, including Russian, of the WG report. It requested that the translation of the document is made available for the next session of the Council. Morocco pointed out the objective manner in which the Government depicted the situation of human rights in terms of both progress and challenges. It congratulated Chad on the number of recommendations that was accepted. It thanked the Government for accepting Morocco’s recommendation on the establishment of a national programme on human rights education and training, and called on the international community to provide technical assistance in this regard. The United States of America urged the Government to continue and to strengthen its efforts to demobilize child soldiers and to end their recruitment and use. It stressed that recruitment from refugee camps continues to be a particular concern and welcomed the Government’s recent awareness campaign for law enforcement. It noted with satisfaction the transfer of some child soldiers to UNICEF custody. The United States of America called upon the Government to allow the magistrates examining the cases related to the abuses that took place between 28 January and 8 February 2008, especially that of Ibni Oumar Mahamat Saleh, to work without interference. It also encouraged the Government to revise its press law to ensure respect for freedom of the press. Djibouti congratulated Chad for its openness to the Human Rights Council mechanisms despite the difficult situation of the country. It hoped that the international community will assist Chad in implementing the UPR recommendations. Burkina Faso noted that the human rights situation in Chad is still marked by the crisis prevailing over several years. The sporadic armed conflicts within the country, and at its borders, have caused human rights violations. This war situation has meant that Chad has given priority to consolidation of peace and national reconciliation, without which the enjoyment of human rights is problematic. It welcomed the Government’s efforts to comply with its international human rights obligations and noted that the implementation of certain recommendations will require support from the international community. Senegal stated that during the WG’s session it expressed support for the initiatives Chad has undertaken in the areas of education and health. It commended the acceptance of the recommendations concerning the fight against poverty and strengthening the protection of the right of women and children. It underlined Chad’s commitment to improve the human rights situation, and noted that it should be provided with technical assistance in this regard. Cameroon encouraged Chad in its efforts to build a state based on the rule of law and respectful of universal and African values, despite an unfavourable context. Cameroon was convinced that the implementation of the accepted recommendations will allow Chad to achieve, more easily, the objective of respect for human dignity. It added that Chad can count on Cameroon’s support and called for multiform assistance to this country. The Democratic Republic of the Congo noted with satisfaction Chad’s determination to raise awareness regarding women’s education. It welcomed Chad’s commitment to set up permanent structures, with the support of UNICEF, against the exploitation of children working as herdsmen. It encouraged Chad to put into practice its willingness to promote all human rights, congratulated it for the efforts to make higher education accessible for all and for the commitment to progressively improve the social situation of students. Ghana welcomed Chad’s acceptance of most of the recommendations and hoped that it will receive the necessary assistance from the international community to enhance its efforts. Ghana expressed concern regarding the preparation and translation of the UPR WG report on Chad. While searching for a solution to the problem in the short term, the Council needs to also find a long term solution to the question of resources for the UPR process to avoid ad hoc measures, which run the risk of undermining the principle of equal treatment for all States. The Republic of the Congo congratulated Chad for its efforts to implement the UPR recommendations. It noted that these efforts deserve recognition and support because Chad suffers constant attacks from rebel movements, which undermine its endeavours to promote and protect human rights. Chad needs technical and financial assistance from the international community. South Africa expressed concern about the late publication of the Chad’s report, particularly for the Chadian delegation that needed to review the report prior to its adoption. South Africa pointed out the substantial number of recommendations enjoying Chad’s support, and it reiterated the call to the international community to assist Chad through the provision of technical assistance and capacity building programmes. It encouraged Chad to continue efforts to restore peace and security, to strengthen the implementation of domestic legislation, to enhance conformity of its domestic law with its human rights obligations, to ensure full protection of, in particular, economic, social and cultural rights. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders The International Federation of ACAT (Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture-FIACAT) congratulated Chad for accepting the recommendation on the definition of torture in accordance with article 1 of the Convention against Torture (CAT). It recalled that the practice of torture is recurrent in police stations, gendarmerie, and the so-called parallel prisons run by the traditional authorities and encouraged Chad to incorporate in the Criminal Code appropriate sanctions against this crime. It encouraged Chad to deal with prison overcrowding and ensure decent conditions for the detainees. It welcomed the acceptance of the recommendation related to giving the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) access to all detention facilities, including “Korotoro”. It remained concerned about the persistence of extrajudicial executions committed by the unit in charge of the protection of environment. Interfaith International noted with satisfaction the reforms undertaken by Chad to improve its legislative and institutional framework, notably the provisions on fundamental freedoms, justice system, female genital mutilation, early marriages and domestic violence. It encouraged the Government to create a healthy atmosphere, which would allow judging those who had committed crimes under the dictatorship of Hisséne Habré, as well as crimes committed during the events in February 2008. Amnesty International called on Chad to implement the recommendations of the national commission of enquiry into the events of N’Djamena in 2008 and to bring to justice those suspected of serious human rights violations; cease the forced eviction of people in N’Djamena and conduct a full and impartial enquiry into the role of police and the military in such evictions; investigate and disclose the whereabouts of victims of enforced disappearance; end the practice of secret detention and make public the name and location of all detention facilities; refrain from harassing human rights defenders and journalists and repeal the provisions of Ordinance N 5 of 20 February 2008; improve measures to protect women and girls in internally displaced person and refugee camps in eastern Chad. It welcomed the Government’s initiative to hold a forum on human rights and its efforts to strengthen the national human rights commission and the Ministry of Human Rights. International Federation of Human Rights Leagues congratulated Chad for its UPR commitments, but it deplored the absence of any specific commitment regarding the protection of human rights defenders and journalists and called on Chad to take into account the reality of sexual violence against women and implement the Optional Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights regarding women’s rights. It welcomed Chad’s commitments to bring an end to arbitrary detentions, deplorable detention conditions, use of torture in prisons, police stations and illegal detention places, and to punish perpetrators. It hoped that Chad will incorporate the CAT’s definition of torture into its criminal code. It encouraged Chad to shed light on the disappearance of Ibni Oumar Mahamat Saleh and implement the recommendations of the commission of enquiry into the events of 2008. Human Rights Watch welcomed the Government’s support for the recommendations addressing the recruitment of child soldiers, and urged Chad to keep the Council informed on the steps taken to ensure the prompt and complete demobilization and reintegration of all child soldiers, and to prevent any further recruitment. It expressed concern regarding continued restrictions imposed on UNICEF access to the Direction General de Services de Sécurité des Institutions de l’État. It urged Chad to take all necessary measures to protect women and girls from sexual violence, to submit a report to CEDAW, and to extend a standing invitation to all special procedures. The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities (IHRAAM) commended the decision of Chad to move the Oure Cassoni refugee camp away from the Sudanese border. It also commended the progress made on the demobilization of child soldiers. Freedom of speech continues to be curtailed, democratic values continue to be eroded, nepotism continues at all levels of power, social mobility is extremely limited and opposition leaders are frequently arrested. It stated that a constitutional amendment in 2005, allowed for the president to serve an unlimited term. It expressed support for several recommendations from the WG’s report: accession to the CAT optional protocol, to ratify the International Convention on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, to achieve poverty reduction target and to invite the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The delegation of Chad expressed its deep satisfaction at the recognition, by Council member states and observers, of the very difficult situation Chad is presently facing and of the efforts the Government is doing to improve the human rights situation in the country. As regards the interventions made by some non-governmental organizations, Chad noted that their information seemed to be outdated. The Ministry for Human Rights and the Promotion of Liberties is responsible for the protection of freedom of expression and for the free circulation of ideas and individuals. No journalist or human rights defender is currently imprisoned or persecuted. Chad also recalled that in 2005, immediately after his appointment, the Minister for Human Rights and the Promotion of Liberties declared to the media that he could not be Minister for Human Rights in a country where journalists and human rights defenders were imprisoned. Should non-governmental organizations have specific names to provide the Chad delegation with, action will be taken immediately to ensure that human rights defenders, journalists, and the civil society at large, can work without interference. On the issue of disappearances in February 2008, an international commission of enquiry, convened by the Government, submitted a report. The Government subsequently set up a technical sub-committee composed by magistrates, police officers and inspectors, to ensure due consideration to the commission’s findings and to clarify the way in which those events happened. Chad’s Government does not tolerate patterns of impunity and has made available to the judiciary all necessary resources to carry out due judicial proceedings. Hearings are still ongoing and justice will ultimately be done. The Ibn Oumar Mahamat Saleh’s disappearance case, like many other cases, was dealt with by the Government, with seriousness, and investigations on his case are ongoing . Yet, it is worth recalling that, in February 2008, most of the capital city was under the control of rebels forces and that the legitimate authorities , not to mention the ordinary citizen, were in danger of being annihilated. On child soldiers, Chad stated that the Government spared no efforts, including legislative steps, to prevent and to eradicate this phenomenon; an agreement was signed with UNICEF on this issue and all possible measures have been taken to avoid child recruitment by the national army. Viet Nam The review of Viet Nam was held on 8 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Viet Nam in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/VNM/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/VNM/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/VNM/3). At its 18th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Viet Nam (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Viet Nam is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/11), together with the views of Viet Nam concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/11/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome In his opening statement, Mr. Pham Binh Minh, First Vice-Foreign Minister of Viet Nam stated that the Vietnamese delegation had had a productive dialogue with countries on the protection and promotion of human rights in Viet Nam at the May Working Group (WG) session. He thanked delegations for commending Viet Nam’s serious Universal Periodic Review (UPR) preparation, the quality and comprehensiveness of the report, and for acknowledging Viet Nam’s achievements in national construction and development. He reiterated that these achievements are results of Viet Nam’s reform process and its consistent policy to respect, protect and promote human rights. At the same time, the UPR process has helped Viet Nam better understand more fully the challenges faced and identify areas for further improvement. Viet Nam also saw this as an experience sharing exercise, which is laying the ground for a better protection and promotion of human rights by the authorities. In May 2009, the Vietnamese delegation expressed agreement with most of the views and recommendations of states. After the WG session, a comprehensive report was submitted to the Government with proposed follow-up steps to implement these recommendations. Briefings on the outcomes of the session were held for people organizations, government agencies as well as the diplomatic corps and NGOs. In the last four months, Viet Nam has shared its development experiences with several countries, ratified the Convention against Corruption, withdrawn its reservations to the optional protocols of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and included in the National Assembly’s 2010 work programme an item on consideration of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Viet Nam would also consider favourably the recommendations on accession to the ILO Convention on Forced Labour and would consider accession to other appropriate ILO conventions. Nevertheless, Viet Nam did not find accession to the Convention 169 indispensable. Viet Nam was strongly committed to continuing to fully implement all recommendations it had accepted. The First Vice-Minister provided additional information on a number of issues. Firstly, the freedom of press and freedom of expression are protected by Vietnamese laws in accordance with international norms. At the same time, journalists are accountable before the law for their actions. Secondly, Viet Nam pays attention to the development of human rights institutions, including a national committee, which it believes depends mainly on the particularities of each nation. Viet Nam has in place a diversified system of institutions to protect and promote human rights with efficiency and effectiveness. Thirdly, Viet Nam stands ready to cooperate with special procedures. Recently it has extended invitations to five special procedures, is discussing with the Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty the timing for a visit and is looking positively at the timing for a visit by the Independent Expert on Minority Issues. Fourthly, the total number of offenses subject to capital punishment has been cut down to 21. However, circumstances do not allow Viet Nam to abolish or place a moratorium on the use of death penalty. Lastly, Viet Nam is positively considering accession to the Convention against Torture and other ILO conventions and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Viet Nam is studying the possibility of accession to the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court and other international treaties. Viet Nam reaffirmed the universal and particular nature of human rights as defined in core human rights treaties and in the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and reiterated that human rights must be addressed in a fair, impartial, constructive and non-selective manner through dialogue. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome The Lao People’s Democratic Republic recognised that Viet Nam had successfully implemented the renovation policy of “Doi Moi”; achieved comprehensive economic-social and cultural development along with achievements on human rights implementation. It also acknowledged Viet Nam’s consistent policy of considering its people at the centre of social and economic development and welcomed Viet Nam’s commitment to poverty reduction, growth strategy for 2005-2010, strategy on judicial reform, strategy on development of legal system-vision for 2020 and national strategy on gender equality for 2011-2020. Brunei Darussalam stated that Viet Nam’s constructive approach to the recommendations illustrated its commitment to enhance human rights. It supported Viet Nam’s endeavours to promote democracy, social equality and security, and welcomed measures to better ensure economic, cultural and social rights, especially of women, children, ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities. It appreciated Viet Nam’s role towards the realisation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. Myanmar welcomed Viet Nam’s constructive engagement as well as its acceptance of most of the recommendations. Since 1986, the Government has enacted and revised 13,000 laws and by-laws to be in conformity with the Constitution. Significant progress in socio-economic development has been achieved and Viet Nam had already attained or surpassed many of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set for the year 2015. Myanmar expressed its belief in Viet Nam’s continued commitment to strengthen the full enjoyment of all human rights by its citizens. People’s Republic of China appreciated the detailed responses to the recommendations, which demonstrated the importance Viet Nam attached to the UPR. Viet Nam has been trying to strengthen democracy and rule of law, promote social equity, improve material standards and cultural rights and attained achievements in nation-building. Viet Nam committed to implement recommendations, consider accession to relevant international conventions, improve the legal framework for human rights protection, promote economic and social rights, protect the rights of women, children and ethnic minorities, and reduce poverty. China wished continued progress in nation-building and the protection of human rights. Algeria appreciated Viet Nam’s determination to meet its obligations under the international treaties and to consider accession to other human rights international instruments, such as the Convention Against Torture. Its conclusive experience in the field of economic, social and cultural rights has allowed a substantial reduction of poverty. Viet Nam will share this experience with interested developing countries thus contributing to strengthening South-South cooperation. Viet Nam had been able to show the added value of the UPR and how it could contribute implementing the goals underlying the establishment of the Human Rights Council. Thailand welcomed Viet Nam’s commitment to consider becoming party to a number of international human rights treaties, and its readiness to cooperate with the special procedures system. It also welcomed the plans to further improve the national legal framework. It noted Viet Nam’s acceptance to continue to provide and expand human rights education and training for relevant Government authorities. Thailand appreciated Viet Nam’s contributions in the establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, and looked forward to working closely in this endeavour. Thailand expressed confidence that Viet Nam will translate the recommendations into actions thus making a real difference on the ground. Cambodia, as an ASEAN country, was pleased with the significant progress and achievements of Viet Nam over the past years. Particularly appreciated were the various follow up activities carried out within the last 4 months. Cambodia took note of the continued commitments of Viet Nam to address the challenges ahead through further implementation of the programs and relevant plans aiming at promoting and protecting the rights of its citizens, especially in the economic, social and cultural areas, including minority rights. Venezuela noted that Viet Nam’s cooperation with the UPR demonstrated its commitment to human rights. It appreciated the achievements in the promotion of human rights, the presentation of development plans for social progress, and the increase in the standard of living of the population. It also noted the Government’s efforts to provide care to the persons with disabilities as a result of the past neo-colonial war. It expressed satisfaction by Viet Nam’s commitment to comply with the MDGs regarding poverty reduction. Cuba indicated that Viet Nam had accepted the majority of the recommendations made during the review. The success of the country, based on the political, economic and social system that was freely chosen by its people, was significant, both in civil and political rights and in economic, social and cultural rights. Viet Nam had been able to demonstrate this success after its struggle against colonialism and military invasion. Cuba expressed its appreciation to a country that was clearly committed to the full respect and enjoyment of all human rights for all: its political willingness deserves recognition. Malaysia was encouraged by Viet Nam’s steps towards implementing many of the recommendations. It welcomed the various mechanisms in place to guarantee the protection of fundamental freedoms and rights and to promote employment, economic growth and alleviate poverty. Malaysia was encouraged by Viet Nam’s commitment to speed up the law reforms and public administrative programme and hoped Viet Nam will remain committed to fully implement the UPR’s recommendations and outcome. Yemen indicated that Viet Nam’s participation showed its commitment to the work of the Human Rights Council, as well as to the UPR. The report presented by Viet Nam to the UPR WG had showed that it was implementing a strategic approach in the area of human rights. Yemen was pleased that Viet Nam had accepted many recommendations. This was a step forward in implementing the human rights instruments to which Viet Nam was a party. Russian Federation appreciated Viet Nam’s efforts to ensure fundamental rights and freedoms, maintain social stability, rapid economic growth and higher living standards. At the WG session in May 2009, Viet Nam had already expressed readiness to implement the majority of recommendations. The recommendations made by the Russian Federation were among the 93 supported. By the next cycle of the review, Viet Nam will have made major efforts to meet its goals including raising living conditions and improving the quality of health and education. It wished Viet Nam further progress in protecting human rights and successful implementation of the obligations it has assumed under the UPR. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation appreciated the Government’s promotion of the participation of non-governmental organisations. Despite many challenges, Vietnamese people benefits from the general improvement of living conditions, poverty reduction, women empowerment, and the caring for children, persons with disabilities and ethnic minorities, and an active religious development. The process of building a law-governed state creates better conditions for people to participate in the political life of the country. The political social system and media structure serve the people’s interests best and are suitable for the situation. Amnesty International (AI) regretted the rejection of important recommendations, including repealing or amending national security laws of the 1999 Penal Code inconsistent with international law; removing other restrictions on dissent, political opposition, freedoms of expression and assembly; and releasing prisoners of conscience. AI was concerned that several prisoners of conscience were in detention and regretted that Viet Nam had not supported recommendations to adopt a moratorium on executions. AI urged Viet Nam to reconsider these recommendations with the view to taking steps towards abolishing the death penalty. Vietnam Family Planning Association thanked the Government for involving non-governmental organisations in the UPR process and commended its efforts on education, healthcare, child rights as well as gender equality and elimination of discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS. It appreciated the achievements in improving living standards, reducing poverty, promoting social justice and progress, and noted the promulgation of laws on gender equality. Although the results are encouraging, Viet Nam still needs further improvements in providing better access to quality health services, including reproductive health, for ethnic minority people, youth and adolescents, and in further strengthening HIV/AIDS prevention and control. International Pen noted that Vietnamese authorities had included “freedom of expression, press and information” among their priorities, but a significant number of writers, journalists and dissidents were being held in detention for having expressed their opinions or dissent publicly. Viet Nam was, in particular, urged to lift pre- and post-publication censorship. Finally, International Pen concurred with the Human Rights Committee’s recommendation to bring Viet Nam’s legislation in conformity with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. International Pen also demanded Viet Nam’s authorities to bring to an end the pattern of imprisonment and residence surveillance against those who hold dissenting views. Human Rights Watch noted Viet Nam’s rejection of recommendations pertaining to arbitrary detention and mistreatment, restrictions on peaceful expression, association and religion, the use of capital punishment and the lack of prohibitions of torture. It noted rejected recommendations to lift internet controls, expedite local registration of religious organizations, repeal or amend national security laws used to criminalise dissent, and release prisoners of conscience. On the positive side, Viet Nam had reduced the number of crimes punishable by capital punishment. Recently, Viet Nam has arrested seven democracy activists and more than 30 Montagnard Christians, with Montagnard Christians having been sentenced to prison, and another eight democracy activists await trial. International Federation of Human Rights Leagues was concerned about Viet Nam's rejection of a number of essential recommendations. Since the review, journalists, bloggers, human rights lawyers and opponents had been arbitrarily arrested. Numerous countries had called for transparency on prisons and camps, the number of detainees and the reasons for their incarceration. Viet Nam should recognise independent religions. Regrettably, Viet Nam had rejected the recommendation to extend an invitation to various Special Procedures. International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) Europe – Third World Centre (CETIM) commended Viet Nam for the achievements regarding poverty reduction, right to education, right to health and right to food, gender equality and promotion of women’s rights. Viet Nam is a developing country having undergone 30 years of war and having to overcome war’s aftermath, for example support for the many victims of bombs, mines and Agent Orange/dioxin as millions of persons are still suffering from its tragic effects, with so far nobody having assumed the responsibility. Despite significant progress, the Vietnamese legal system contains some inconsistencies and contradictions, with the adoption of free-market laws. World Peace Council noted that Vietnamese people had suffered colonial domination and foreign interventions. There were still millions of victims suffering from Agent Orange related diseases. Regretfully, the perpetrators and the international community have not adequately dealt with this issue. The Constitution guarantees and makes provisions for all fundamental human and civil rights, including the right of freedom of belief and religion. All questions and answers sessions in the Parliament are broadcasted live on television; the media often openly criticize wrong-doings of the authorities. It encouraged the Vietnamese to pursue the universal values in their own way and not to impose formulas that have many limitations. North-South XXI, in a joint statement with Union of Arab Jurists, remained concerned about the Government's limitation on freedom of expression, and encouraged the Government to continue to work closely with journalists and media organizations to ensure that a variety of views were expressed in the media. North-South XXI hoped that Viet Nam would consider subscribing to the General Assembly moratorium on the death penalty. The international community had a legal duty to support Viet Nam’s efforts with adequate resources and cooperation. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review In his concluding remarks, Vice-Minister Pham Binh Minh thanked States and some NGOs for their objective remarks and the goodwill comments on the challenges facing Viet Nam. He affirmed that the Government gives priority to addressing these challenges. It was emphasized that the development of the press and internet in Viet Nam was vivid evidence of the fact that freedom of press and expression and internet freedom are well protected. In addition, freedom of religion is protected, resulting in the growth of religions in all aspects. Special treatment is provided to ethnic minorities to assist them in preserving their culture and way of life. These policies have been crucial in forging the unity among all religions and ethnicities in Viet Nam. Mr. Pham Binh Minh reaffirmed that the ultimate goal, also a manifestation of efforts to promote human rights in Viet Nam, is to develop a prosperous people, strong country and a just, democratic and advanced society. The promotion of democracy and human rights are both the goal and the driving force of the reform process. Viet Nam has continued to strengthen the legal framework to better protect and promote human rights. The civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people are being better ensured. Viet Nam believed that in this common cause, each nation has its own political, historical, social, cultural, religious and ethnic particularities. In each case, the State bears the primary responsibility to do what is needed for the interests of the nation and the people. Therefore, any State would need to take necessary measures to maintain social and political stability for development, and in this connection, any activity that violates the law and threatens this fundamental interest of the nation should be punished in accordance with the law. Viet Nam believed that the UPR mechanism will continue to uphold the principles of cooperation and dialogue on the basis of equality and respect for national sovereignty in order to truly contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights in each and every nation. On its part, Viet Nam would develop an action plan to effectively implement the UPR recommendations and would stand ready to discuss and share experience with all countries and international organizations to better ensure human rights in Viet Nam and the world. Finally, the delegation thanked countries for their support and assistance to Viet Nam in its efforts to protect and promote human rights, the WG Troika and the Secretariat for the active technical assistance. Uruguay The review of Uruguay was held on 11 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Uruguay in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/URY/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/URY/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/URY/3). At its 18th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on SuR (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Uruguay is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/12), together with the views of Uruguay concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group. 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome At the 18th meeting, on 24 September 2009, Maria Elena Martinez, Director of Human Rights, Minister of Education and Culture, made an opening statement, thanking all 46 delegations that had made observations and recommendations and noting that Uruguay had examined the 86 recommendations received during the interactive dialogue, and was proud to have accepted them all. Uruguay wished to provide clarifications on some recommendations, to brief about actions already initiated to respond to many of them, and to provide information on the road ahead. With regard to the first recommendation requesting Uruguay to consider ratifying the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, Uruguay informed that it had indeed deposited the instrument accepting this Convention on 3 May 2004, and as such, it had entered into force for Uruguay as of 3 August 2004. As requested in the second recommendation, Uruguay wished to inform that it was signing today, 24 September 2009, the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in New York. It also informed that it had submitted a revised report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in July 2009. Uruguay indicated that it had started to comply with it’s own voluntary commitments made during the UPR working group, including the submission of five due reports to various treaty monitoring bodies - the Committee on Migrant Workers, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and on the two Optional Protocols to the CRC. In accordance with recommendations 11 and 20, Uruguay has initiated consultations to establish a permanent inter-institutional high-level political coordination mechanism for the elaboration of human rights reports and follow-up to recommendations, including those emanating from the universal periodic review. As per recommendations 10 and 11, the civil society will be directly involved in this mechanism. At the regional level, Uruguay is committed to formulating human rights policies, and is specifically supporting the MERCOSUR high level meetings on human rights which are currently introducing reforms to its structure with the aim of improving it. At national level, Uruguay approved in 2008 its national human rights institution established in accordance with the Paris Principles. It will however be the new government that will assume functions in 2010, that will put in effect this institution to which 12 countries referred to in recommendations 8 and 9. A bill is also currently being drafted to harmonize the competencies of the national human rights institution with those of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Prisons. Uruguay wished also to refer to three fundamental issues which were part of the recommendations, and are also very important for the government: the situation of persons deprived of their liberty, the situation of women and children and the issue of discrimination. Uruguay briefed about measures undertaken to guarantee the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, making reference inter alia, to two bills to reform the Penal Code and the Penal Procedure Code. Uruguay recalled that already in 2005, the current government had declared the prisons in situation of humanitarian emergency. A plan to reduce the overcrowding in the prison system is being currently implemented. This will also allow for the classification of persons deprived of their liberty in accordance with international standards and to provide special attention to imprisoned mothers. The Plan of Action for the Reform of the Prison system was approved last June and a new health care system has already been put in place in one of the major penitentiary centers and will be further extended to others. Specialized treatment to HIV/AIDS persons deprived of their liberty is also available. This year, the work and study programmes have been strengthened and the Internal Affairs Department to investigate cases of ill-treatment has been established. On the situation of boys, girls and women, which was the subject of many recommendations, Uruguay noted that this has remained a main concern in the policies of the government during the last four years. Reference to the following efforts were made by the delegation: the Equity Plan; a bill to increase the age of marriage for both sexes to 16 years; the recently approved law to prevent and punish sexual harassment in the schools and work; the implementation of the general law on education, which universalized the education as of 3 years, created the National Commission for Human Rights Education and the National Commission for non-formal Education; the newly adopted law on Adoption which modified the Children and Adolescents Code; a national survey recently initiated on child labour, and; the Plan Ceibal providing one laptop per child in the public schools. Regarding efforts to address discrimination, Uruguay informed that in consultation with civil society, it has initiated the process for the drafting of the State report to CERD and the elaboration of a National Plan against Discrimination. Efforts to redress the housing situation, centered on afro-descendents, have also been initiated. The ‘Day of the Charrúa Nation and the Indigenous Identity’, on 9 September has been declared. With regard to the rights of gays, lesbians and transsexual, and the legislation that recognizes the rights of couples cohabiting and couples of the same sex, Uruguay informed about the new law on adoption guaranteeing this right for these couples and on the bill on Gender Identity. Regarding the reference in the recommendations to abolish the Law on the Expiry of the Punitive Claims (ley de caducidad) and the approval of the exercise of the right to vote by citizens resident abroad, Uruguay noted that once the processes established by the Constitution in this regard have been completed, these will be decided in two referendums to be held on 25 October 2009 during the next national elections. In connection with the State terrorism that Uruguay suffered in the recent past, the delegation informed that the Parliament had recently adopted a law recognizing the illegal action carried out by the State and the comprehensive reparation of victims of human rights violations during this shameful period in their history. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome China noted with satisfaction the openness with which Uruguay had agreed to the recommendations made by various states. It noted with appreciation that over the last twenty years Uruguay had rapidly set up a system to protect civil rights, to eliminate poverty, promote the right to information, promote the right of minorities, social harmony and international cooperation. China encouraged Uruguay to work on the basis of national realities, by analysing and considering any valid recommendation from the UPR, and expand its international cooperation to ensure that the enjoyment of all human rights are increased for the population. Algeria welcomed the delegation of Uruguay and thanked it for the additional information it provided on the follow up to the recommendations of the Working Group. Algeria noted with satisfaction that Uruguay had endorsed most of the recommendations and was determined to follow-up on them. Algeria also welcomed Uruguay’s readiness to take on the recommendations to set up a national committee to combat discrimination against People of African descent and indigenous peoples and to abolish gender disparity in employment and ensure that there is equal pay for equal work. Algeria also praised the penal reforms carried out by Uruguay. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela noted Uruguay’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and open cooperation with the UPR mechanism. Venezuela noted with appreciation the efforts carried out through Uruguay’s social plans and programs, in particular, measures implemented to respond to the problems of children and adolescents in extreme vulnerability. Venezuela appreciated Uruguay’s determination to continue the necessary consultations, in the follow up to these recommendations, which were accepted without major reserves. Cuba admired Uruguay’s efforts to promote and protect human rights, which have meant significant achievements in all fields, civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. As a developing country, with limited resources, aggravated by the current economic and financial global crisis, Uruguay has nonetheless multiplied its efforts. The achievements reached by the country were unquestionable, including in the need to end impunity. Cuba highlighted the Plan for Equity and its comprehensiveness since it encompasses areas such as health, education, food, employment, social security, among others. Cuba noted the indicators obtained since the Plan’s application clearly reflect its effectiveness in combating poverty, promoting equality and social justice. Experiences such as these are examples of good practices for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Russian Federation welcomed the Uruguayan delegation and noted its successful completion of the Universal Periodic process. It welcomed the readiness of Uruguay to implement all recommendations, including the two recommendations submitted by the Russian Federation on alleviating poverty and on the outcome document of the review conference on racism. The Russian Federation wished Uruguay every success in implementing the obligations which it has assumed under the UPR process. Nicaragua applauded Uruguay’s cooperation in sharing its national experience implementing recommendations formulated to strengthen their system of protection and promotion of human rights. Nicaragua which prioritizes citizen participation in policy and decision-making processes, as founding principle of democracies, congratulated Uruguay for consulting with civil society to follow up on its international human rights commitments. The review of Uruguay permitted the sharing of good practices. Colombia congratulated Uruguay for the referendum to be organized on October 25, which could provide Uruguayans residing abroad with the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, as well as for the second referendum on the issue of justice, which would help combat all forms of impunity inherited from dictatorship. Colombia highlighted Uruguay’s advances in the fight against all forms of discrimination by creating the National Plan Against Discrimination and by adopting laws based on the universality of human rights, reaffirming non-discrimination against sexual orientation. Colombia acknowledged Uruguay’s commitment in the defense and promotion of children’s rights. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders Following recommendations made by the Czech Republic, the Federatie van Netherlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie van Homoseksualiteit (COC Nederland) and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network recommended Uruguay to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity as grounds for discrimination in the development of such framework. Referring to a Bill pending adoption by Parliament that recognizes the right of all persons to the free development of their personality in accordance with their gender identity without requiring sex-reassignment surgery, COC Nederland commended Uruguay for adopting this legislation as well as for its announcement to develop initiatives that recognize the rights of same-sex couples. COC Nederland welcomed the role Uruguay has played in bringing attention to the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in international fora, and the measures adopted nationally, including its leadership in being the first country in Latin America to provide for same-sex civil unions. Conectas Direitos Humanos, CDH, noted difficulties in the consultation process in preparation for the UPR, among them the selective way of convening organized civil society, without sufficient time and without information to allow adequate analysis. CDH welcomed recommendations 10 and 11 reiterating the importance of civil society involvement. CDH noted the urgency of advancing the National Institute for Human Rights, ensuring the necessary technical and financial resources, in line with recommendations 8, 9, 12 and 13. CDH recognized the normative advances in the present legislature, but regretted the slow progress in: approving the new Penal and Penal Process Codes incorporating protection to victims; derogation of laws that are discriminatory to women; updating codification of crimes such as torture; and the completion of the guarantees of due process according to international standards. CDH highlighted the absence of a National Plan for Education in Human Rights and, in this regard welcomed recommendations 11 and 13. The International Commission of Jurists, ICJ, recommended to Uruguay, to: derogate the law on the expiry of punitive claim of the State; bring legislation in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child to avoid using prison sentences as a first instance; derogate unconstitutional aspects of the law for police procedures; and derogate the law of disrespect, defamation and injury related to civil servants. ICJ noted with satisfaction some recommendations, such as the importance of revision and if necessary, derogation of laws that favoured impunity for the crimes committed during the dictatorship, as well as improvement of the prison system, specifically alternative measures to liberty deprivation for minors. ICJ regretted no recommendations were made regarding the law on police procedure that gives a wide margin of discretion to police officers. It also regretted that no recommendation on the law of disrespect, defamation and injury of civil servants, which has meant the imprisonment of several journalists, was made. In relation to recommendation 22, the Federation for Women and Family Planning, FWFP, commended the Uruguayan Parliament for having passed, in December 2008, the Comprehensive Law to Defend Sexual and Reproductive Rights, and noted that unfortunately this was later restricted by presidential veto and asked the plans to implement this law. FWFP urged the government to prioritize public policies aimed at youth and the inclusion of sexual and reproductive rights in these policies. It welcomed the commitments to increase investment to guarantee rights to freedom in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as the design and implementation of a National Plan to Combat All Forms of Discrimination. With respect to recommendations 19, 29 and 33, FWFP noted that women victims of violence complain about the lack of an adequate judicial procedure. It also noted that procedures for reporting cases of violence against children were extremely long and lack comprehensive measures to respond and provide care to those affected. In relation to human trafficking – recommendations 16, 18, 43, 45 to 51 – Action Canada for Population and Development, ACPD, recognized the efforts made by the State after the set up of specialized courts for crimes that require special treatment. In relation to the prison system, recommendations No. 7, 28, 29, 39, 40, 52 to 60, 61, 63, 67 to 70 – ACPD expressed concern about prison conditions. ACPD made reference to 63% of detainees in prison being in preventive custody for many years and made reference to the recent death of 5 inmates in the COMCAR prison. Regarding the right to truth, justice, memory and reparation and guarantees against non-repetition - recommendations No. 62, 64 to 66 – ACPD stressed that it was essential to annul the Law of Expiration of punitive state claims because it represented one of the largest obstacles in the fight against impunity. ACPD also referred to the excavations have been resumed to find around about 200 people still missing and requested to know the truth about the events, access to all files of the repression and ensure the independence of the powers of the state. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review Uruguay thanked all delegations for their interventions and mentioned again that Uruguay had already accepted all recommendations at the time of the adoption of the UPR Working group report in May 2009 although it was not possible to address all of them in four months. It noted that 130 laws out of 600 laws adopted the past four year expand and further guarantee human rights, which was a clear sign of the national commitment. Uruguay noted that much remains to be done and renewed its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. Yemen The review of Yemen was held on 11 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Yemen in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/YEM/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/YEM/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/YEM/3). At its 18th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Yemen (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Yemen is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/13), together with the views of Yemen concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/13/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The delegation indicated that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are essential links in a single chain. It reaffirmed its commitment to all voluntary pledges made in the national report and to the implementation of the recommendations over the next four years. The delegation provided replies to the 21 recommendations that were under consideration by its authorities (A/HRC/12/13, Para.93). The full text of the replies is contained in document A/HRC/12/13/add.1. The delegation indicated that it has accepted 16 recommendations: 2, 6, 7 and 9 to 21 contained in document A/HRC/12/13, Para 93. Recommendation 6 was accepted within the framework of the decision adopted by the parliament to raise the minimum age of marriage of girls to17 years of age. The possibility of raising it to 18 will be considered in the future. On recommendation 9, the delegation added that it had set up a national committee to harmonize national legislation with international instruments ratified by Yemen. Yemen accepted recommendation 10 within the limits of the Islamic Sharia. Concerning recommendation 12, the delegation stated that the Yemeni constitution and laws criminalize and punish severely all forms of violence against women and girls and that no honour crimes are committed in Yemen. On recommendation 13, the delegation mentioned that spousal rape does not exist in Yemen and that all marriages are based on mutual consent. Wives can separate from their husbands in view of divorce under Sharia and personal status laws. Regarding recommendation 14, Yemen noted that the Ministry of Human Rights, civil society organisations and the ICRC are allowed to undertake prison visits and enquire about prisoners’ conditions. With regards to recommendation 17, the delegation added that the President of the Republic had issued a decision prohibiting the imprisonment of any journalist for a matter related to freedom of opinion and speech. As per recommendation 19, Yemen stressed that the Constitution grants the right to set up Organisations to defend human rights in accordance with international standards to all citizens. The delegation stated that 5 recommendations remain under review. Regarding recommendation 1, Yemen did not intend to become party to OP-CEDAW for the time being. Recommendation 3 cannot be supported until a decision is taken by the authorities in that regard. Recommendation 4 is presently not accepted and will be examined in the future. Regarding recommendation 5, Yemen does not presently intend to accept individual complaint procedures under the treaties to which it is a party. There are a number of national institutions and mechanisms which receive individual and group complaints and deal with them in a serious manner, in conformity with constitutional provisions and applicable laws. On recommendation 8, Yemen does not intend for the time being, to extend a standing invitation to all Human Rights Council’s special procedures. This request will be considered by Parliament in the future. The delegation indicated that it has accepted a total of 125 recommendations. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Lebanon noted with deep appreciation efforts made by Yemen within the framework of the UPR. It welcomed measures taken by Yemen towards strengthening and consolidating human rights despite the limited resources and challenges it faces. Lebanon encouraged Yemen to continue its efforts aimed at enhancing the rights of women and children and all other human rights. Vietnam appreciated the openness and cooperation of Yemen during the UPR and underlined the fact that Yemen accepted 125 of 142 recommendations. It noted with satisfaction the measures taken in order to implement the recommendations accepted, including the 2 recommendations presented by Vietnam. This demonstrates Yemen’s political will and commitment to respect and protect human rights, despite its limited resources and many economic and social challenges. China appreciated the openness of Yemen towards States’ recommendations. It underlined the drop of the poverty rate over the past decade and the substantial progress in promoting people’s rights to education, health and food. China noted the establishment of several human rights institutions, the improvement of domestic law and the work done for the promotion and protection of human rights. Yemen had actively cooperated with the international community and United Nations human rights institutions. China acknowledged that Yemen still faces challenges but expressed confidence that it will make further progress both with regard to the economy and human rights. Algeria noted the acceptance of most recommendations, including Algeria’s recommendation to create an independent human rights commission. It noted with satisfaction Yemen’s will to continue subscribing to its human rights obligations and cooperating with international mechanisms, while taking into account its religious, social and cultural specificities. It encouraged Yemen to continue to promote women’s issues in development plans, to improve health care services for women, particularly in rural areas and to improve women’s access to education. It welcomed efforts to combat poverty and unemployment. Referring to the recent painful events in Yemen, Algeria reaffirmed its support to the country’s security, stability and unity. Venezuela highlighted the work done by Yemen on social development over the past years, leading to a notable improvement of health indicators. Venezuela reiterated its recognition for the efforts made in the humanitarian sphere by receiving many refugees from Africa. It stressed that this involves major challenges for Yemen and urged that this country be supported by the international community. Venezuela noted with appreciation the establishment of an institutional mechanism to comply with UPR recommendations. Egypt welcomed Yemen’s national strategy for the promotion of gender equality in all areas, as well as its legislative and constitutional reforms, which should have a positive impact on the lives of the citizens. Yemen has demonstrated a strong will to strengthen human rights and improve living conditions of all its citizens despite scarce resources and the burden of fighting terrorism and hosting refugees from the horn of Africa. Egypt called upon the international community to provide Yemen with the necessary support so that it can continue its efforts to improve living conditions and promote all human rights. Qatar paid tribute to Yemen for its positive and constructive attitude regarding the UPR recommendations, 125 of which were accepted. Despite challenges faced by Yemen, it adopted many policies and strategies to protect human rights and great improvements in the fields of human rights have been made since 1990. The constitution guarantees all human rights. Qatar always endeavoured to preserve Yemen’s unity, stability and territorial integrity, as it believed that unity is the basis for Yemen’s security and development. Cuba noted that despite the scarcity of resources Yemen faces as a developing country, the review pointed to its clear will to further improve the daily life of its citizens, in particular with respect to basic rights such as education, health, food, and to poverty eradication. Cuba noted the measures taken to broaden health coverage and improve the quality of health services. It welcomed measures for the promotion and protection of the rights of women, in particular in areas such as access to higher positions, education and the labour market. The Syrian Arab Republic welcomed Yemen’s strategic vision, which ties sustainable development to human rights, reflecting the seriousness of Yemen in improving the human rights situation. Yemen was able to overcome difficulties such as lack of resources, poverty, terrorism and growing numbers of refugees, so as to improve the promotion and protection of human rights, including the right to development. This has been done in a transparent and responsible manner while respecting the cultural and religious specificities of the State and its people. Pakistan noted Yemen’s strong commitment to human rights which is evident from accepting most of the recommendations and introducing a wide ranged reform process to improve the human rights situation. It expressed confidence that Yemen will take necessary steps to expedite the operationalisation of an independent human rights institution, in accordance with the Paris Principles, and take actions to implement the accepted recommendations. It appreciated Yemen’s openness towards human rights mechanisms and expected the international community to extend all possible assistance to Yemen for the political, economic and social uplift of its citizens. Bahrain welcomed the positive steps taken by Yemen to implement the UPR recommendations and improve the human rights situation, which reflects Yemen’s commitment to promote human rights and cooperate with United Nations mechanisms. It welcomed Yemen’s interest in ensuring women’s rights and its acceptance of Bahrain’s recommendation to promote the role of women in society and their access to decision-making posts, as well as of other recommendations related to discrimination against women. United Arab Emirates noted with appreciation Yemen’s positive steps towards implementing UPR recommendations and voluntary commitments. It welcomed efforts made by the government to strengthen and promote human rights, in particular rights of women and children. Yemen accepted all recommendations related to these rights and to the rights to education, health, and to poverty alleviation. It welcomed Yemen’s will to strengthen national institutions and raise the level of human rights awareness of its people. United Arab Emirates asked the Human Rights Council to extend to Yemen the support it requests. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe) and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (joint statement) commended Yemen for accepting recommendation 9 but expressed serious concern that Yemen maintains the death penalty for consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex. The ICCPR states that in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, the death sentence may be imposed only for the most serious crimes. General Assembly resolutions on the death penalty and extrajudicial executions have emphasized that homosexual acts do not fall within the definition of the most serious crimes. No international human rights document condones this violation of human rights principles. Al-Hakim Foundation noted Yemen’s commitment to UPR recommendations despite difficulties and obstacles encountered by the country, in particular the ongoing military operations in the north which have led many inhabitants to leave their homes. Many citizens are in need of food, shelter and medical care and access to these people is difficult because of the continued fighting. It expressed concern regarding the increasing tension in the south where the government ignored claims related to basic services and development issues, which led to demonstrations that resulted in confrontations with security forces. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies noted an increase in human rights violations over the last months, in particular violations of the freedom of information and the press and peaceful assembly by the government, in contradiction of a number of UPR recommendations. It added that recent reports confirmed the continued use of political arbitrary detentions, prolonged detentions and torture by governmental authorities. It added that concerning the war in Saada, governmental forces killed 85 civilians in an aerial attack in the previous week, which resulted in the displacement of 150 000 people. Amnesty International urged Yemen to implement recommendations on women’s rights, including prohibiting any practice of forced marriage of girls. It strongly encouraged the government to reconsider its position on recommendations regarding the death penalty, which it has rejected. It welcomed Yemen’s support to recommendation 55 and urged it to commute all outstanding death sentences imposed on individuals convicted of having committed a capital offence while under the age of 18. It called on the government to immediately end violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the context of the conflict in the Saada region and to urgently investigate all allegations of serious violations by its forces. It requested a clarification on Yemen’s position on recommendations 20 and 21. Human Rights Information and Training was pleased that Yemen accepted most recommendations. It called for the implementation of all recommendations, particularly those regarding the establishment of a human rights institution, allowing the Ministry of Human Rights and NGO’s greater access to prisons, especially those controlled by the political security department, and allowing the spread of human rights culture. It stressed that detainees held by the political security department should be given access to legal advice and information and that international humanitarian law be respected during armed conflicts and the fight against terrorism. It called for enhancing cooperation with civil society and was concerned at Yemen’s refusal to ratify OP-CAT. Human Rights Watch urged Yemen to implement the accepted recommendations, including in the southern and northern regions. While the government publicly claims to listen to southern grievances, its security forces have responded to largely peaceful protests with a crackdown and have attacked independent media and outspoken southern academics and students. Yemen should respect recommendations 72 to 76 and commit to implement recommendations made by Norway and the Czech Republic It was extremely concerned about the grave humanitarian consequences of current fighting in northern Yemen. The government should facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial humanitarian relief for civilians and all parties to the armed conflict should respect the prohibition of targeting civilians. International Federation of Human Rights Leagues welcomed the support by Yemen of several recommendations relating to counter-terrorism and said that Yemen should therefore amend its draft anti-terrorism laws. Due to the widespread use of forced disappearance, arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, it expressed concern at Yemen’s reluctance to ratify OPCAT. Highly restricted access to prisons is a main concern. It mentioned that fair trial guarantees are widely disregarded and that the functioning of the specialised criminal court is unconstitutional. It noted that freedom of expression and press was gradually restricted over the past years with journalists under trial and eight newspapers closed after being accused of “working against Yemeni unity”. Arab Network for Environment and Development welcomed Yemen’s acceptance of most recommendations and endorsed recommendations 74 to 76 on freedom of opinion and the press. In implementing these recommendations, Yemen should reform laws in accordance with principles of good governance and freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. A number of citizens in the south were killed, oppressed or forcibly disappeared for demonstrating peacefully. It endorsed recommendation 13 and stressed the importance of abolishing all unconstitutional exceptional courts. Several laws stipulate death penalty in areas not under the Sharia law, including freedom of opinion and belief. It reaffirmed the importance of ensuring equality between Jews Yemeni citizens and others in enjoying all political rights. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The delegation hoped that the international community will provide Yemen with every support to reach the required security, democracy and respect for human rights. Responding to some observations by national and international organizations of the civil society, the delegation noted that their presence and participation as well as that of journalists in the present discussion were proof that Yemen is a truly democratic country. Civil society organizations needed to substantiate their allegations with concrete evidence since not all what was stated was true. It asked the international community whether anyone would accept that rebels have the right to take up arms against the State. The war in Saada was imposed on Yemen which found itself under the obligation to defend the Yemeni people living in this province. Yemen has repeatedly called for an end of the hostilities and for dialogue through national mediations and a national and regional dialogue. Regretfully, these calls remained unanswered by the rebels which welcomed the language of weapons. The claims of the Huthis, the objectives of the war and whether the war is motivated by religion or whether it is a quest for power, remain unclear to the Government. The delegation believed that elections are the way to reach power and noted that the recent election of the Yemeni President was followed by all international organizations. In relation to IDPs , it noted that the Ministry of Human Rights is part of the Commission composed of, inter alia, United Nations Funds and Programmes (UNDP, UNICEF) and the ICRC, which visit the areas of conflict and provide assistance. There is no shortage of assistance neither from international organizations nor the Yemeni government. The delegation stated that prisons under the supervision of the political security department were established in accordance with a law accepted by Parliament. Regarding the adherence of Yemen to international humanitarian law and cooperation with the ICRC, the delegation said there is a national committee dealing with the implementation of this law. The delegation emphasized that Yemen strives to have a full partnership with civil society organizations and the national human rights strategy is the best example of this cooperation. It reaffirmed that the Government will engage the civil society and political partners to implement UPR recommendations. The delegation reaffirmed its acceptance of recommendations 20 and 21 mentioned by stakeholders. It stressed that a governmental committee was established to study all the legitimate demands of the citizens of the south and to respond to them as soon as possible. If there are any legitimate demands, the government is ready to implement all of them. The delegation added that there are no restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly and any arrests or closure of news papers are made in conformity with the law. Public information activities are undertaken in conformity with the Constitution and the press and publications law which grants every citizen the right to freedom of opinion and to seek information without any restrictions. Every citizen has the right to seek redress through the courts. Vanuatu The review of Vanuatu was held on 12 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Vanuatu in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/VUT/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/VUT/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/VUT/3). At its 19th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Vanuatu (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Vanuatu is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/14), together with the views of Vanuatu concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (A/HRC/12/14/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The Representative of Vanuatu, Ms. Roline Lesines, Labour Department, Vice-Chairperson of the Vanuatu UPR Committee, reaffirmed that Vanuatu was committed to the promotion and protection of the human rights of its citizens. The representative informed that the Government had already taken positive steps towards the implementation of the UPR recommendations through the formulation of various policies and frameworks within government departments and ministries. Vanuatu accepted all recommendations except for recommendations 2, 3, 5, 7 and part of recommendation 20: Regarding recommendation 2 on the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Vanuatu is not yet prepared to ratify this Convention. The delegation stated that the existing legislative framework provided for protection against all forms of discrimination, including racial discrimination, for instance, in Article 5 (1) of the Constitution; In relation to recommendations 3, 5 and 7 concerning the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families, the accession to the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on the Civil and Political rights, Vanuatu is not yet prepared to ratify the said instruments, with one of the main reasons being the financial constraints Vanuatu is facing. The representative informed that an appropriate assessment and consultations would be undertaken with a view to ratifying these conventions when deemed appropriate. The second part of recommendation 20 that called for considering applying adequate sanctions for parents who fail to send their children to school was not acceptable for Vanuatu. The delegation said that Vanuatu was prepared to provide appropriate counselling services to parents who fail to send their children to school. Vanuatu had developed a Justice Sector Strategy for 2009-2014, aimed at promoting and protecting the rights of vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, detainees, women and children. One of its main challenges was to formulate policies that would aim at ensuring the complementarity of human rights/local legislation and custom. The representative informed that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were taken into consideration in the Justice Sector Strategy, which would lead to relevant legislative reforms. Vanuatu had also established a MDG taskforce with a view to facilitating the implementation of the MDGs by ministries and departments. The Department of Correctional Services has taken steps to improve the situation in the Correctional Centres by renovating them and separating high risk detainees and low risk detainees. A Disciplinary Committee for the Correctional Services was also established, which handles complaints related to the mistreatment of detainees. The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was scheduled to visit Vanuatu on 4 December 2009 to discuss issues of the treatment of detainees in the context of international standards. The representative of Vanuatu said that the Family Protection Act came into effect. Vanuatu had taken positive steps to ensure its full implementation. The Government was working on awareness programmes for the Family Protection Act in collaboration with a leading NGO working on violence against women. Moreover, Vanuatu was prioritizing work on a proposal for the review of all relevant legislations that are discriminatory and marginalize women. Vanuatu had established a Family Protection Unit within the Police Force to deal with issues related to domestic violence with a view to ensuring that all cases are properly investigated. The delegation informed that Vanuatu was seriously considering the setting-up of a Human Rights Commission or Unit within the Government, which would oversee the implementation of the UPR recommendations. The Government had already held talks with some international partners for appropriate technical assistance. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Algeria commended Vanuatu’s sustained efforts to promote and protect human rights despite constraints as a small island developing state and a least developed country. It invited the international community and the United Nations to provide necessary technical assistance to further enhance this protection. Algeria was encouraged by measures taken to ensure gender equality, the conditions of women and their participation in political life. It also noted efforts to improve the health system, combat disease and reduce child mortality, calling on relevant United Nations actors to provide necessary technical assistance in this regard. Acknowledging the Government’s readiness to develop a policy of free education, it encouraged efforts to guarantee free and compulsory primary education by enhancing implementation of the national action plan for education for all. Algeria said it would welcome a representation of the Pacific Islands Forum in Geneva, to be able to engage in dialogue with the Forum. India welcomed Vanuatu’s constructive engagement with the UPR despite the lack of a representation in Geneva, regarding this as symbolic of Vanuatu’s commitment to human rights. It noted with appreciation Vanuatu’s recent ratification of the ICCPR, CEDAW, the CRC and the CRPD as well as the enactment of the Family Protection Act, which could contribute to protecting and promoting women’s rights. It acknowledged the challenges Vanuatu is facing as a small island developing state and a least developed country. Australia recognised Vanuatu’s challenges as a small state and acknowledged the extensive consultations with Government departments and non-governmental organisations in preparation of the report. Australia commended Vanuatu’s commitment to improving conditions in prisons and detention centres, particularly by separating minors and adults. Recognising Vanuatu’s commitment to human rights principles, including women’s rights, Australia welcomed the Family Protection Act and encouraged practical steps to ensure its timely implementation. The United States of America commended Vanuatu’s engagement with the UPR despite its constraints. It noted that accountability and transparency in Vanuatu’s public sector remained an area of concern. While appreciating efforts by the offices of the Ombudsman and the Auditor General to investigate corruption in the public sector, it asked for more resources to be provided to them to allow for vigorous investigation. The United States of America commended the renovation of detention centres to meet international standards, and the passage of the Family Protection Act to prevent and punish abuses against women. New Zealand recognised that participation in the review process was a major undertaking for small island states in the Pacific region and welcomed Vanuatu’s willingness to share its experience with other Pacific countries at a seminar on the UPR held in early 2009. It welcomed Vanuatu’s acceptance of over 90 per cent of the recommendations and commended its justice sector strategy 2009-2014, which addresses human rights protection, including for persons with disabilities. It looked forward to working with Vanuatu on the implementation of the recommendations. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders Amnesty International (AI) welcomed Vanuatu’s progress towards ensuring human rights, particularly the enactment of the Family Protection Act, and urged that the Act be implemented through training programmes for stakeholders and allocation of adequate resources. AI also welcomed the steps being taken to consolidate various family laws into a single one, urging that this review take place through an adequate public consultation, and that the necessary assistance be provided by the international community. Welcoming that Vanuatu is at the preliminary stages of ratifying the CAT, AI encouraged Vanuatu to ratify the ICESCR. This would send a strong signal of commitment to addressing poverty-related issues. AI urged the international community to assist Vanuatu in addressing poverty, lack of access to health services, clean water and adequate housing. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network appreciated the high rate of acceptance of most of the recommendations. It encouraged the use of the format of Vanuatu’s response as clarity on positions on recommendations is crucial to the UPR process. Welcoming Vanuatu’s response on recommendation 25, it emphasized that explicit antidiscrimination legislation could enhance Vanuatu’s commitment to human rights and the protection accorded to marginalized groups. It further encouraged Vanuatu to accept the recommendation and to explicitly prohibit discrimination on grounds, including disability, economic status, and sexual orientation or HIV/AIDS status. It suggested Vanuatu strengthen the protection of marginalised groups through awareness-raising and public education campaigns, encouraging Vanuatu to apply the Yogyakarta Principles as guidance for policy-making. Further, it encouraged Vanuatu to join the declaration made by 67 States at the General Assembly in 2008 calling for an end to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Franciscans International (FI) welcomed Vanuatu's commitment to achieving free education from grade 1 to 8 by 2010 and its acceptance of recommendation 42, encouraging Vanuatu to support children whose families cannot afford to pay the additional expenses related to compulsory primary education. FI also encouraged the expansion of schooling infrastructure to allow access to free education beyond grade 8. It called on Vanuatu to consider a creative secondary school curriculum as well as the implementation of education services for unemployed youth. FI further encouraged Vanuatu to collect statistical data and to analyze the causes for the low rate of progression from primary to secondary school and the drop-out rates. Welcoming the standing invitation issued to Special Procedures, FI was of the view that a visit of the Special Rapporteur on education could contribute to the improvement of the right to education, and would provide an opportunity to share best practices with other countries in the region. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The delegation of Vanuatu reiterated that the UPR is a new process for Vanuatu, but that the Government is firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights. Vanuatu would positively take on board the comments made by States and stakeholders and use them to improve its human rights-related policies and laws. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The review of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was held on 12 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MKD/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MKD/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/MKD/3). At its 19th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (see section C below). The outcome of the review on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/15), together with the views of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/15/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome H. E. Mrs. Svetlana Geleva, Head of Sector for Multilateral Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that the recommendations made during the UPR Working Group largely correspond to the priorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the promotion and protection of human rights, and would constitute an additional valuable guidance in the action of the country in this area. The comments and suggestions clustered in 42 recommendations are generally acceptable for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. With regards to international treaties, the country had recently signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A working group consisting of representatives of ministries and NGOs has been established to carry out all necessary activities for the ratification of the Convention and its Protocol. The procedure for the signature and consequent ratification of the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR was expected to commence in the near future, and there were possibilities for the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, as well as the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. On the rights of the child, the provisions of the CRC were fully taken in consideration in the assessment of the applicable laws and in the adoption of new legislation. The UNICEF Office in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is consulted and involved. A separate department for the rights of the child within the Ombudsman's Office is to be formally established, in line with the recently adopted amendments to the Law on Ombudsman. The recent amendments to the Law on Ombudsman also aimed at the consistent implementation of the provisions of the Law on the ratification of the OP-CAT. The new Law strengthened the role and the financial independence of the Ombudsman which is established as the national prevention mechanism and ensured its financial independence in line with the Paris Principles. On the Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) and inter-ethnic relations recommendations, the Framework Agreement remained a priority for the Government, all envisaged laws regulating rights of non-majority communities had been adopted, and the recruitment procedures for persons belonging to non-majority communities were pursued according to envisaged dynamics. A Committee of Ministers has been established to monitor the implementation of the OFA and a series of projects are implemented, among which a UNDP project centred on improvement of inter-ethnic dialogue and cooperation among communities. A strategy entitled Integration through education is being drafted, the four National Action and Operative Plans under the Roma Decade and Strategy have been revised, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will start the implementation of a project for women in rural areas, including women belonging to ethnic communities. On status registration, the Law on Registers set forth the obligation of registering the birth of a child and no fees were charged for documents and procedures. It had been established that the Roma population had the greatest problems with the registry records and, among other things, a large number of educational and information meetings and debates had been organised by the Government and non-governmental organizations to deal with this problem. The current penitentiary reform consists of two components: improvement of the accommodation facilities for convicted prisoners, for remand prisoners and juveniles, and improvement of working conditions for the staff and increase the staff number. A training and Education Program has been adopted, as well as an Operative Plan for staff training. The Project entitled “Piloting prison reforms in accordance with European Union required standards” will be implemented and funds have been requested, under the 2009 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), for the preparation of a national Prisons System Development Strategy, as well as for the assessment and implementation of a Prison Health Care Strategy. Concerning anti-discrimination recommendations, the draft Law on the protection against discrimination will be soon considered by the Government for formal approval. A series of non-discrimination trainings started in mid- June. A series of public awareness raising campaigns have also been organized. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender has been explicitly prohibited under the draft Law. The recommendation on the rights of same-sex partners (n°18-b) was not at this stage acceptable for the country. The implementation of the Law on Equal Opportunities and of the Gender Equality Action Plan was expected to help the continuous positive trend in the representation of women in all spheres of social life. An analysis of the relevant legislation has been prepared and citizen logs are designed in cooperation with Roma women’s NGOs and the Ombudsman’s Office in the context of activities to overcome unequal treatment and access of Roma, especially of Roma women, to State institutions. The 2008-2011 National Strategy for Protection against Domestic Violence was being implemented. All relevant institutions and ministries undertake measures in order to raise the expertise level of the relevant professionals. Measures are also undertaken to improve public information about legal measures to protect victims of domestic violence. An Action Plan aiming at the effective implementation of the Law on Juvenile Justice was in force. Bylaws have been adopted and programs for specialised trainings of all involved institutions have been prepared. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has continually improved the coherence of the activities of various institutions, NGOs and international organizations which worked on the detection and prevention of trafficking in human beings. The European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings have been ratified in April 2009, a new national 2009-2012 Action Plan has been adopted, as well as a new Strategy. The reform of the judiciary and the promotion of its independence and efficiency remained major priorities. The 2004 Reform Strategy has been fully implemented, an Action Plan is being prepared and the judiciary budget has been increased by 11%. There were independent and external mechanisms for control of the work of the police. The Internal Control and Professional Standards Sector objectively and professionally examine all allegations of abuse by the police. Concerning elections, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia indicated that it will fully implement the recommendations contained in the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation report (2009) which involve further reform of the election system, as well as the revision of the voter’s List. Regarding education, in particular drop-outs from school, a mentor project which helps pupils and parents to enrol their children in school and follow up their progress is implemented. 650 scholarships for secondary schools have been awarded to Roma students and the secondary school enrolment criteria for Roma students have been lowered by 10%. For the past three years, a project intended for Roma children a year before they start primary education has been implemented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy in cooperation with the Roma Education Fund and certain local self-governments. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Hungary commended the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for its full engagement with UPR and hoped that the implementation of the recommendations would contribute to the promotion of human rights in the country. It welcomed the clarification provided to its question concerning the credibility and effectiveness of the judiciary. Hungary fully supported the efforts already made to improve the efficiency of human rights institutions and encouraged the Government to further strengthen the rights of the Ombudsman in relation to non-discrimination issues. Hungary was convinced that the full implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement would contribute to the strengthening of the rights of minorities. It asked that more attention be paid to reassessing the legal status of the so-called “Kosovo Refugees” and encouraged the Government to follow-up on this issue. Algeria noted the quality of the information presented which demonstrated the serious approach of the authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia towards the UPR process. However, the process should involve not only the administration but also the politicians in the country. Therefore, ministerial involvement is encouraged. Algeria welcomed the acceptance by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of its recommendation to make sure that the Office of the Ombudsman was in line with the Paris Principles. Measures and concretes actions undertaken to tackle the question of drop-out rate from school, in particular for Roma children, were underlined. Algeria also welcomed the favourable follow-up on its recommendation to ensure that certain minorities had access to adequate housing, education, employment and healthcare and particular attention to be paid to the promotion of their integration in all sectors of social life. The Russian Federation highlighted the serious attitude and constructive approach of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at all stages of the UPR process. It thanked the delegation for its answers to the questions it had raised. The information provided demonstrated the commitment of the Government to, inter alia, accede to international human rights treaties and improve national human rights standards to bring them in line with international human rights requirements and standards. It understood that the creation of appropriate and effective implementation mechanisms was at the top of the Government’s agenda and wished the country further success in promoting and protecting human rights. Bosnia and Herzegovina noted that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was striving at fulfilling its human rights obligations, and improvements had been made. Developments of Actions Plans, projects and strategies confirm the commitment of the Government to face the human rights challenges in different areas. Steps taken in direction of the adoption and ratification of international human rights instruments also showed serious improvements of human rights in the country. Bulgaria noted that some improvements had been observed in the legislative and institutional framework of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for the protection of human rights. It remained concerned about cases of ethnic intolerance and discrimination and appealed to the country’s authorities to take all appropriate measures to prevent discrimination based on ethnic affiliation and to foster tolerance and respect for ethnic diversity. Bulgaria also called on the authorities to make systematic efforts to guarantee the independence of the media while addressing the widespread practice of hate speech; and to quickly take measures to implement Recommendation 13 of the report of the Working Group. Slovenia thanked the Government for having addressed and replied to the questions it had raised, particularly with regard to the independence of the judiciary, the anti-discrimination law, and the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement. Slovenia also welcomed the acceptance of its recommendation on the consolidation of the independence and overall capacity of the judicial system by the Government, and encouraged it to further strengthen the rights of minorities and the institution of the Ombudsman. The United States of America noted with concern that ethnic segregation in schools was increasing in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. While this was originally done to protect minority students from ethnically based violence, it tended to deepen the dividing lines between the different ethnicities, reinforce stereotypes, and nullify reconciliation efforts. It welcomed the Government’s commitment to address the roots of ethnic violence and to foster tolerance and respect for ethnic diversity by focussing greater efforts on education. It fully supported the Ministry of Education’s goal of introducing courses on multiculturalism and tolerance as a means to enhance social cohesion among all ethnic groups. Slovakia welcomed the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s decision to fully implement the recommendations for improving the legislation on elections. It was pleased that the reform of the judiciary and the promotion of its independence and efficiency remained the major priorities of the country and encouraged the Government to continue all necessary efforts in preparation of the Action Plan for Justice System reform, as well as the improvement of conditions in prisons and detentions centers. Efforts should also be undertaken to achieve full compliance of the anti-discrimination law, currently in preparation, with the international human rights standards. Slovakia also welcomed the determination of the Government to fully implement the Ohrid Framework Agreement and encouraged it to use the synergy of integration processes and Instruments for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) in its efforts to tackle the challenges identified in the UPR. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders In a joint statement, International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-EUROPE), Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and Federatie van Netherlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie van Homoseksualiteit COC Nederland strongly commended the Government for accepting most parts of recommendations 13 and 18 contained in the report of the Working Group. ILGA Europe called for the explicit inclusion of gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Anti-discrimination Law, in order to better protect the rights of transgender people. ILGA welcomed the recent Government’s awareness raising campaigns and anti-discrimination programmes. It encouraged the Government, in its development and implementation of such campaigns, to work in partnership with relevant civil society groups and to use the Yogakarta Principles for guidance. Regarding recommendation 18 (b), ILGA expressed its deep disappointment that the Government had decided not to treat same-sex couples in the same manner as opposite sex partners and urged the Government to re-consider its position on this matter. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) remained concerned by frequent allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement authorities and the failure to take effective measures to prosecute and punish the perpetrators, as required by the international human rights obligations of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Further, ICJ regretted that the Working Group did not address some of the key issues for the effective prevention of torture, including the lack of prompt, effective and confidential access to a lawyer, and the need for a prompt, independent medical examination of those alleging torture or ill-treatment, as well as effective review by judicial bodies of the legality of the detention. ICJ also called on the Government to carry out an independent investigation on the circumstances of Mr. al-Masri’s abduction and detention in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the role of its intelligence services in that regard. Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD) urged the Government to fully implement the Ohrid Framework Agreement especially with respect to Roma communities. It also urged the Government to prioritize the process of formulation of an anti-discrimination legal framework and the strengthening of administrative structures to sanction any form of discrimination. It called attention to the fact that shelter centres for victims of domestic violence remained inaccessible for Roma girls under the age of 18 who suffered violence based on early and / or arranged marriages within their families. With respect to the Kosovo Roma refugees, ACPD expressed concern that the process of granting asylum was not fully gender sensitive. It reported that there were cases of women who suffered the worst forms of gender-based violence, to the families of which the asylum status was denied. Concerning the situation of begging children belonging to the Roma, ACPD urged the Government to introduce affirmative measures to eliminate begging. It reported that almost half of those children had addictions’ problems and were thus in conflict with the law. It also strongly urged the Government to, inter alia, consider an amnesty for all children under the age of 16 for whom the State did not offer programmes to combat their addictions. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review In her concluding remarks, the head of the delegation indicated that all suggestions were duly taken into account. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia acknowledged that improvement is always possible in relation to human rights and was living up to that credo. The country developed a tolerant society, with its own specificities. It was also seeking to resolve its difficulties and was open to any further discussions on the issues raised by some delegations. The UPR process, in which the entire Government was fully involved, was an excellent opportunity to assess achievements, both in terms of national and international commitments, and to see where the country stood on a number of issues. The delegation reiterated that recommendations would serve as useful guidance in policy design and action on human rights, and the recommendations and suggestions given would be included therein. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would continue to cooperate fully and engage with the UPR process in the future. Comoros The review of the Comoros was held on 13 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on information presented by Comoros, in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/COM/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/COM/3). At its 18th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on the Comoros (see section C below). The outcome of the review on the Comoros is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/16), together with the views of the Comoros concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group. 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The delegation of the Comoros expressed its gratitude for the efforts deployed by the United Nations and in particular by the Secretariat to ensure the participation of the delegation of the Comoros in the Universal Periodic Review. Mexico, the United Kingdom and Ghana were thanked for their assistance in the preparation of the outcome of the review, which the Comoros hoped would be adopted. The delegation considered that almost six months after the review of the Comoros, positive results could rightly be expected regarding the human rights concerns raised. Regarding the attempted secession on the island of Anjouan in 2008, the delegation announced that the detained military separatists had been released and returned to their island of origin. It also informed that the politicians in Grande Comore who defied the implementation of the revised Constitution, no longer face judicial investigation and are not in detention. The delegation stated that the 52 recommendations supported by the Comoros represented a commitment and reiterated a firm intention to their implementation. It noted that the country is deeply attached to the ideals of human rights and reiterated that the outcome of the review will be fully embraced by the Comoros. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Qatar appreciated that the Comoros had accepted 52 recommendations, including recommendation 45 which was presented by Qatar to pursue further efforts to provide free of charge education to all school-aged children. It applauded achievements such as the establishment of federal institutions in the context of the on-going political and constitutional reform. It noted the lack of economic and financial resources and challenges posed by poverty, unemployment and illiteracy, particularly in realising economic, social and cultural rights, as well as in reaching the Millennium Development Goals objectives. Qatar paid tribute to the efforts of the Comoros to combat corruption and poverty, and with regard to good governance, in order to achieve human and social development. Qatar wished for more progress in promoting and protecting human rights in Comoros. Algeria commended the Comoros on efforts made in spite of the challenges faced due to scarce resources. It noted that the acceptance of recommendations indicated the determination of the Comoros to implement its international human rights commitments. Algeria congratulated the Comoros in particular for the release of the detained rebels. It welcomed the efforts in fighting poverty and in eliminating all forms of discrimination against women, by adopting a national policy for gender equality and promoting the participation of women in public affairs and economic life. It commended the efforts to prepare a national growth and poverty reduction strategy as well as a national plan of action for access to education for all. It appreciated the acceptance of recommendations on training of judicial and law enforcement officials to improve the child protection and juvenile justice systems. Algeria called on the international community to support the Comoros in its efforts. Bahrain welcomed the adherence by the Comoros to human rights principles and values. It commended the Comoros on the commitments implemented or being implemented, in spite of economic and social impediments. It applauded the policies and programs to protect and promote human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development, in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goal objectives. It referred to measures taken to alleviate poverty and increase education and health care for all. Bahrain appreciated the efforts to improve the situation of women and to encourage the appointment of women to decision-making positions and their participation to economic activity. It welcomed the national policy for equity and justice and further measures to guarantee equality between men and women at work. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that the participation of the Comoros in the Universal Periodic Review indicated the importance the country gives to human rights in spite of the difficulties faced. It noted the number of structures set up in the Comoros for the protection of women and women’s rights, mechanisms for the protection of children, and new strategies to women’s empowerment and ensure access to education. It commended the efforts to combat poverty and to continue securing access to education and health. It welcomed the accession of the Comoros to numerous international human rights conventions and that the interactive dialogue had resulted in recommendations that were accepted by the Comoros. It hoped that the United Nations and the international community will offer assistance to the Comoros, as required to support its efforts to improve the human rights situation. Morocco observed that the support of the majority of recommendations illustrated the determination of the Comoros to move forward in a spirit of transparency and objectivity. Morocco welcomed the decision of the Comoros to accept the recommendations concerning the improvement of the situation of women and the promotion of education for children. It noted the readiness of the authorities to take measures to reduce child and maternal mortality and to improve the access of children to health care. It stated that implementing the recommendations required support and assistance from international agencies, such as the World Health Organization. It considered that the efforts by the Comoros, despite scarce resources, showed the firm will to modernise and democratise the government. It stated that substantial assistance and support from the international community to the Comoros is necessary and justified. Senegal indicated that by accepting the majority of recommendations, the Comoros had confirmed its readiness to improve the human rights situation against the background of a difficult context. Senegal welcomed the willingness of the Comoros to accede to further international human rights instruments. It also looked favourably upon the acceptance of the recommendation concerning the establishment of a national human rights institution. It considered that the existence of such an institution could greatly contribute to the strengthening of the institutional human rights framework. Senegal encouraged the Comoros to be vigorous in its efforts to ensure effective implementation of the accepted recommendations, and appealed to the international community to assist in this regard. Ghana thanked the Comoros for the further clarifications to the recommendations, and appreciated the measures already taken since the review including the release of the detained rebels. It recalled that the Comoros had announced its strong attachment to human rights ideals and the commitment to foster real human development despite facing many economic and social constraints. It appreciated the Comoros’ acceptance of 52 of the 59 recommendations and the willingness to work with the Human Rights Council to strengthen efforts to address human rights issues in the country. It considered that the Comoros deserved the support of the Human Rights Council and the international community in its desire to improve the promotion and protection of human rights. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders International Lesbian and Gay Association addressed recommendation 4 in paragraph 66 of the report and noted that same-sex activity between consenting adults is criminalised by article 318 of the Penal Code. It noted that the Human Rights Committee had repeatedly confirmed that such laws violate the rights to both privacy and non-discrimination, contrary to articles 17(1) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and referred also to the calls by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the issue. It noted the delegation’s responses that homosexuality is not prosecuted and the law not enforced, and considered that if this is this case, the Government should be willing to accept the recommendation. Even when not enforced, such laws undermine the human dignity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It urged Comoros to bring the Penal Code into conformity with the international human rights obligations by repealing those provisions and to accept the recommendation to organise awareness-raising campaigns. International Human Rights Association of American Minorities appreciated the recommendations reflected in the outcome of the review. It expressed concern over reports of the harsh and insanitary conditions in which a number of people are held in detention. It commended the ratification of additional instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It also commended efforts to improve the situation of children, reduce infant mortality, fight poverty and achieve gender equality, despite the serious challenges. It noted that climate change will negatively impact the human rights to life, health, food and water, and also affect the adequate standard of living and the environment. It demanded that the Human Rights Council and the international community support the Comoros in its efforts to promote and protect human rights. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The Comoros welcomed the statements calling upon the international community to support the country to improve the promotion and protection of human rights. Regarding the concerns raised by the International Lesbian and Gay Association, the delegation reiterated that consenting adults have never been prosecuted in the Comoros for engaging in homosexual relations. The delegation took note of the recommendation to revise article 318 of the Penal Code. In this respect, the Comoros recalled that countries do not evolve in the same manner and that time is needed for changes to materialize. In closing, the Comoros reaffirmed that it will strive to make human rights ideals a reality in the country. Slovakia The review of Slovakia was held on 13 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Slovakia in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/SVK/1); the compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/SVK/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/SVK/3). At its 19th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Slovakia (see section C below). The outcome of the review on Slovakia is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/17), together with the views of Slovakia concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/17/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome The delegation of Slovakia stated that the UPR process was a unique opportunity to assess the implementation of its international human rights obligations. The majority of recommendations had been identified as constructive and target-oriented, and many of the recommended measures had already been incorporated in action plans and are at different stages of implementation. The delegation emphasized that the majority of recommendations had been related to the Roma and the improvement of their standard of living, access to appropriate housing, education, health care, employment, as well as to the elimination of acts of discrimination, ethnically motivated violence, ill-treatment by law enforcement authorities vis-à-vis the Roma. Slovakia considered this set of recommendations very complex and requiring huge financial resources, efforts and cooperation of all involved, and noted that solutions were not imminent but would materialize in the future. The delegation stressed that Slovakia had accepted 79 recommendations without any reservation, had not accepted 9 recommendations, and supported 3 recommendations with reservations. Slovakia noted that it could not accept recommendation 9 which is calling for the adoption of a comprehensive legal instrument which would recognize the rights of persons belonging to minority groups and would offer the necessary protection especially to children. Slovakia attaches high importance to the protection of minority groups, including children. Rights of persons belonging to national minorities are guaranteed by the Constitution and other existing legal norms. Slovakia deems this framework sufficient and does not foresee any new legal instrument. Similarly, recommendation 11 proposes the development of more legislative guarantees aimed at achieving full compliance with the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The delegation stated that the existing legislative guarantees were sufficient. The Council of the Government for National and Ethnic Minorities had reviewed the current periodical reports on the implementation of these two conventions without requesting any additional measures. As regards recommendation 14, calling for the formulation and implementation of the National Action Plan on the Protection of Civil Rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons (LGBT), the delegation drew attention to the Action Plan for the Prevention of all Forms of Discrimination, Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and Intolerance that is a comprehensive document pertaining also to LGBT rights. Slovakia did not accept recommendations 67 to 69 and underlined that forced sterilizations had never been an official state policy or an officially endorsed practice and that therefore the Government cannot take any political responsibility. The accusations of alleged forced sterilizations of Roma women in Eastern Slovakia had caused an immediate reaction from the Government, which initiated a criminal prosecution against unidentified offenders for the criminal offence of genocide. In 2003, the criminal prosecution was stopped since it was apparent that the act for which the criminal prosecution was undertaken had not happened. In this connection, the legislation on healthcare was revisited and the Act No. 576 of 2004 stipulated the conditions necessary for sterilization and institutionalized the “informed consent” as a precondition for sterilization. Slovakia did not accept recommendation 72, which called for enacting and implementing new legislative norms in order to put an end to discriminatory practices against Roma in the educational process. The School Act of 2008 together with the Anti-discrimination Act provides equal conditions for all children with regard to access to education. The School Act accentuates the following main principles of training and education: equal access to education and training, and prohibition of all forms of discrimination and segregation. The delegation considered that for the time being the above-mentioned legal framework was sufficient. Slovakia did not accept recommendations 75 to 76 proposing working out and implementing a strategy for addressing the disproportionate enrolment of Roma children in special schools. The delegation informed that the School Act provided clear criteria for enrolling children in “specialized schools or classes” and clearly defined and distinguished between children and students with special educational needs, handicaps, disabilities, or feeble health from those, who come from a socially disadvantaged environment. No additional or new measures were planned. Turning to recommendations which Slovakia supported with reservations, the delegation informed that while supporting the general aim of the second part of recommendation 47, calling for combating exploitation of children in the workplace, it stressed that no cases of exploitation of children in the workplace had been reported, as the employment of children under 15 was prohibited. Slovakia expressed a reservation to recommendation 55, which proposed measures on religious freedom and more flexible norms and rules for religious groups with a small number of believers and avoiding their discrimination. It considered that the recommendation did not clearly identify the nature of the requested flexibility, quantitative parameters of a small number of believers and the form of discrimination which should be avoided. Slovakia had a reservation to recommendation 22 asking for regular responses to questionnaires sent by special procedures mandate holders. As a small country, Slovakia has limited capacities and despite all efforts might not always be able to provide the requested information. Slovakia would do its outmost to meet the requirements but asked for understanding if it is not always responding in time. The delegation stressed that Slovakia accepted all remaining 79 recommendations. It considered the UPR a continuing process and expressed its determination to implement the recommendations received through a cooperation of governmental and nongovernmental bodies. Slovakia remained committed to working towards the implementation of the voluntary pledges undertaken when presenting its candidature to the Human Rights Council. In conclusion, the delegation highlighted that Slovakia had been among the first countries that signed the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 24 September 2009. It also noted that the information about the UPR recommendations and their implementation would be presented at the upcoming meeting of the Council of the Government of Slovakia for non-governmental non-profit organisations. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome Hungary welcomed Slovakia’s steps and recalled its recommendation to further improve the legislative guarantees of the rights of national minorities. It noted that the Slovak Parliament amended the State Language Act on 30 June 2009, which entered into force on 1 September 2009, and said that on several points the Act runs counter to the various international commitments Slovakia has undertaken. It considered that instead of protecting and promoting the rights and identities of national minorities, the law limits them. It expressed a preference for a mutually acceptable solution, based on international norms and serving the legitimate interests of minorities. It highlighted that Hungary and Slovakia have been involved in bilateral negotiations, also relying on international actors, in particular the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) and that on 10 September 2009 the Heads of Government of Hungary and Slovakia agreed to fully accept the recommendations of the HCNM concerning the amended Language Law. The two countries discussed the implementation of this commitment. Hungary hoped to inform the Human Rights Council on progress achieved, at the upcoming Second Minority Forum in November. Algeria noted that Slovakia is a party to the majority of human rights instruments, which demonstrates the determination of the country to promote and protect all human rights. It was encouraged by Slovakia’s readiness to examine the possibility of adhering to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. It welcomed the creation of a national strategy for gender equality 2009-2013 and the measures taken to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women, in particular the progressive integration of women in higher ranking and decision-making positions, as recommended by Algeria. It welcomed Slovakia’s efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and its commitment to increase the volume of the Official Development Assistance to least developed countries. Russian Federation considered that Slovakia’s review was in conformity with the requirements contained in General Assembly resolution 60/251 and in resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council. It noted the positive result was achieved because of the serious approach of the Slovak delegation at all phases of the process and that Slovakia agreed without reservation to the majority of recommendations. It wished Slovakia further progress in the protection and promotion of human rights and the utmost success in the implementation of the commitments undertaken during the UPR process. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders Amnesty International (AI) was concerned that large numbers of Roma children are placed unnecessarily in special schools and classes for children with mental disabilities, which severely reduces future education and employment opportunities. It regretted the rejection by Slovakia of recommendations 75 and 76 and urged it to reconsider them without delay. AI noted that several States have raised concerns about reported cases of forced sterilisation of Roma women without their prior and informed consent. It remained concerned at the continued failure of the authorities to carry out impartial and effective investigations in this regard. The authorities’ denial of cases of forced sterilizations in public hospitals is worrying in light of reports of a series of halted prosecutions into cases of alleged forced sterilisations. AI regretted Slovakia’s rejection of recommendations 67 to 69 and urged the government to reconsider these recommendations. The International Gay and Lesbian Association of Europe, on behalf of Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie von Homoseksualiteit - COC Netherlands, and other associations, welcomed Slovakia’s acceptance of recommendation 14 to formulate and implement a national plan of action for the protection of the civil rights of LGBT persons, as well as the confirmation that the National Action Plan for the Prevention for all sorts of Discrimination, was a comprehensive document pertaining also to LGBT rights. It urged Slovakia to ensure the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as grounds of discrimination in human rights legislation; to develop comprehensive legislation regulating gender-reassignment procedures; to take legislative measures ensuring that same-sex couples enjoy equal rights and obligations as opposite-sex couples; and to use the Yogyakarta Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity as a guide to policy making and the National Action Plan. It commended Slovakia for supporting the joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity delivered at the United Nations General Assembly last December, on behalf of 67 states from all five United Nations regions. Franciscans International (FI) emphasised that any assessment of the social and economic status of the Roma population must be preceded by an accurate reflection of their situation and encouraged Slovakia to consider data gathering as a priority in its action plans. It stressed that the State’s housing policy, focusing on the provision of economic instruments, should ensure that the Roma’s particular cultural and social contexts are taken into account. FI stated that Slovakia must ensure effective participation of the Roma in decision-making process on education and health related-matters and to identify why Roma children who are not in need of special education are enrolled in such schools and to analyse the reason for the large presence of such schools in Roma communities. It urged Slovakia to engage in campaigns for the promotion of an effective right to education. Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) stressed Slovakia’s spirit of cooperation and noted Slovakia’s efforts with regard to: education, refugees’ rights, the fight against racism, prohibition of torture and cruel and inhuman behaviours, poverty reduction, the fight against human trafficking, protection of women and children’s rights, and attention towards the rights of ethnic minorities. The lack of a fully independent human rights monitoring body at the national level was a highly noticeable problem which could be rectified by removing restrictions and expanding the authority of the current Slovak National Centre for Human Rights. It also highlighted how the development and expansion of bilateral and multilateral cooperation, technical support, promotion of public awareness and the adoption of an interactive approach, could help reaching a common human rights understanding and common objectives. ODVV hoped that with the expansion of cooperation in human rights, particularly with civil society and nongovernmental organizations, Slovakia could further improve the country’s human rights situation. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under Review The delegation of Slovakia thanked the delegations and non-governmental organisations for taking the floor and for the positive views expressed. The delegation noted also some critical ideas or dissatisfaction regarding the responses provided by Slovakia and recalled the answers it provided in its national report, oral statements and written responses. It assured that it would work on all recommendations in the hope that the views will be more positive in four years when Slovakia undergoes the second cycle of the UPR. In addition to the response to Hungary’s recommendation given in May, Slovakia informed about the forthcoming reviews by the Council of Europe before the end of 2009 regarding the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter. Slovakia would see from these two monitoring exercises if there would be any need for further improvement. Regarding the new issue of the amended State Language Act, Slovakia expressed its satisfaction that the matter is becoming part of a normal and civilised dialogue between friends and neighbours. Judging from the opinions of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), Slovakia was confident that the law was in line with its international obligations. Slovakia would focus on the implementation of the recommendations which both Slovakia and Hungary received from the HCNM and Slovakia would, together with Hungary, work on the implementation of the amended law and on the rules of implementation. The delegation informed that on 25 September 2009, the Joint Intergovernmental Commission on National Minorities met in Bratislava. It hoped that the final results of this and other meetings expected to take place in the future would be satisfactory to both sides. While thanking for the interest attributed to the human rights situation in Slovakia, the delegation assured that Slovakia considered the UPR a continuing process. Slovakia was at an early stage on the process and would provide sufficient attention to the recommendations. B. General debate on agenda item 6 At the 20th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Council held a general debate on agenda item 6, during which the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bangladesh, France, Italy, Japan, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, and Ukraine), Ukraine, United States of America, Uruguay2 (also on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)); (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Colombia, Turkey; (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, International Service for Human Rights. C. Consideration and action on draft proposals Central African Republic At the 14th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/101 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Monaco At the 14th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/102 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Belize At the 14th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/103 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Congo At the 15th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/104 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Malta At the 15th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/105 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). New Zealand At the 16th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/106 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Afghanistan At the 16th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/107 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Chile At the 16th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/108 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Chad At the 17th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/109 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Viet Nam At the 18th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/110 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Uruguay At the 18th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/111 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Yemen At the 18th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/112 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Vanuatu At the 19th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/113 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia At the 19th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/114 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Comoros At the 19th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/115 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). Slovakia At the 20th meeting, on 25 September 2009, the Council adopted draft decision 12/116 without a vote (for the text adopted, see part one, chap. I). VII. Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories A. Follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution S-9/1 At the 23rd meeting, on 29 September 2009, Justice Richard J. Goldstone made a statement on the report of the United Nations fact -finding mission on the Gaza Conflict (A/HRC/12/48), pursuant to Council resolution S-9/1. At the same meeting, the representatives of Israel and Palestine made statements as concerned parties. During the ensuing interactive dialogue, at the same meeting and at the 24th meeting on the same day, the following made statements and asked questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bahrain, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt (also on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Norway, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), United States of America; (b) Observers for the following States: Algeria, Iraq, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Oman, Sudan, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen; (c) Observer for an intergovernmental organization: League of Arab States; (d) Observer for a national human rights institution: Independent Commission on Human Rights-Palestine; (e) Observers for non-governmental organizations: Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Man, Amnesty International, Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee, Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America (also on behalf of United Nations Watch, European Union of Jewish Student), Hudson Institute (also on behalf of Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust (Touro Law Center)), Human Rights Watch, Physician for Human Rights. At the 23rd and 24th meetings, on 29 September, Hina Jilani and Justice Richard J. Goldstone answered questions and made concluding remarks. Also at the 24th meeting, on the same day, the High Commissioner made a statement in relation to the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip and presented her periodic report on the implementation of Council resolution S-9/1 (A/HRC/12/37). B. General debate on agenda item 7 At the 24th and 25th meetings, on 29 and 30 September 2009, the Council held a general debate on agenda item 7, during which the following made statements: (a) The representatives of Palestine and Syrian Arab Republic made statements as concerned parties; (b) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil (also on behalf of India and South Africa), Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Group of Arab States); (c) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Australia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iceland, Ireland, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, New Zealand, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Yemen; (d) Observer for the following intergovernmental organizations: African Union, League of Arab States; (e) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International, Association of World Citizens, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Centre Europe Tiers-Monde (also on behalf of World Federation of Trade Unions), Coordinating Board of Jewish Organization (also on behalf of B’nai B’rith International), Defence for Children International, Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Hudson Institute (also on behalf of International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists), Institute for Women Studies and Research, International Commission of Jurists, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Islamic Human Rights Commission, Maryam Ghasemi Educational Charity Institute, Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples, Nord – Sud XXI, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Union of Arab Jurist (also on behalf of International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination), United Nations Watch, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. C. Consideration and action on draft proposals The human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem At the 31st meeting, on 1 October 2009, the representative of Pakistan (also on behalf of the Group of African States, the Group of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, made a statement in relation to draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.12, sponsored by Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, with the exception of Chile, Guatemala and Panama), Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States, with the exception of Cameroon), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) and Tunisia (on behalf of the Group of Arab States). At the same meeting, at the request of the representative of Pakistan, the draft resolution was deferred for consideration by the Council at its thirteenth session. VIII. Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action A. Annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective in the work of the Human Rights Council (with focus on the Universal Periodic Review) At the 21st meeting, on 28 September 2009, pursuant to Council resolution 6/30, the Council held its annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective in the work of the Human Rights Council with focus on the Universal Periodic Review. Mona Rishmawi, representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, opened the discussion with a statement. At the same meeting the following panellists addressed the Council: Leilani Farha, Cecilia Rachel Quisumbing, Jeremy Sarkin, Maria Virginia Bras Gomes (also on behalf of Barbara Evelyn Bailey) and Fatima-Binta Victoire Dah. In the first part of the ensuing discussion, the following made statements and asked the panellists questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, Chile, Cuba, France, Indonesia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Azerbaijan, Canada (also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand), Finland, Ireland, Turkey; (c) Observer for a national human rights institution: Consultative Council of Human Rights of Morocco; (d) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Human Rights Watch, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (also on behalf of Asia Pacific Forum on Women Law and Development, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, Catholic Organization for relief and development, Interfaith International, International Alliance of Women, International Council of Nurses, International Council of Women, International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, International Network of Liberal Women, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, Soka Gakkai International, Solar Cookers International, the Tandem Project, Women’s World Summit Foundation, World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Association, World Alliance of Young Women’s Christian Association, World Federation for Mental Health, Worldwide Organization of Women, World Women’s Federation for World Peace and Zonta International). At the same meeting, the following panellists answered questions and made comments: Leilani Farha, Cecilia Rachel Quisumbing, and Jeremy Sarkin. In the second part of the ensuing discussion at the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the panellists questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bangladesh, Belgium, China, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan(on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Republic of Korea, United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Morocco, Switzerland; (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices affecting the Health of Women and Children (also on behalf of Women Federation for World Peace International), International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, International Federation of University Women. At the same meeting, the following panellists answered questions and made their concluding remarks: Leilani Farha, Cecilia Rachel Quisumbing, Jeremy Sarkin, Fatima-Binta Victoire Dah and Maria Virginia Bras Gomes. B. General debate on agenda item 8 At the 25th and 26th meetings, on 30 September 2009, the Council held a general debate on agenda item 8, during which the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Norway, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine), Thailand2 (also on behalf of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore and Viet Nam), United States of America, Uruguay (also on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)); (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Belarus, Turkey; (c) Observer for a national human rights institution: International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions; (d) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Action Canada for Population and Development, Amnesty International, Asian Forum for Human Rights (also on behalf of International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development and International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific), Association for World Education, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Centre for Women’s Global Leadership (also on behalf of Asia Pacific Forum on Women Law and Development and International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific), Federatie van Netherlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie van Homoseksualiteit COC Nederland (also on behalf of European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association), European Union for Public Relations, Human Rights Watch, International Club for Peace Research, International Commission of Jurists, Indian Council of Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union, International Institutes for Non-Aligned Studies, International Services for Human Rights, Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples, United Nations Watch, Universal Esperanto Association. At the 26th meeting, on 30 September, the representatives of Iran (Islamic Republic of), Sri Lanka and Sudan made statements in exercise of the right of reply. C. Consideration and action on draft proposals Promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind At the 31st meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of the Russian Federation introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.13/Rev.1, sponsored by the Russian Federation and co-sponsored by Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Singapore and Sri Lanka. Subsequently, Algeria, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Viet Nam and Zambia joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of the Russian Federation orally revised the draft resolution by modifying operative paragraph 1. Also at the same meeting, the representatives of Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and China made general comments in relation to the draft resolution. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the representatives of Argentina, Chile, France (on behalf of States members of the European Union that are members of the Council), Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Senegal and United States of America made statements in explanation of vote before the vote. Also at the same meeting, at the request of the representative of Norway, a recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.13/Rev.1. The draft resolution was adopted by 26 votes in favour, 15 against, with 6 abstentions. The voting was as follows: In favour: Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Zambia; Against: Belgium, Chile, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America; Abstaining: Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Ghana, Ukraine, Uruguay. For the text as orally revised and adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/21. At the same meeting, the representatives of Nigeria and Ukraine made statements in explanation of vote after the vote. At the 31st and 32nd meetings, on 2 October, the representatives of Australia (also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand), Cuba and Switzerland made general remarks in relation to the adopted resolution. IX. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action A. Interactive dialogue with special procedures At the 26th meeting, on 30 September 2009, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai, presented his report (A/HRC/12/38). During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the Special Rapporteur questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Brazil, Chile, France, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Indonesia, Norway, Nigeria (also on behalf of the Group of African States), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Qatar, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Malaysia, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic; (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Cairo Institute for Human Rights, European Center for Law and Justice, Indian Council of South America, Interfaith International, United Nations Watch. At the same meeting, the Special Rapporteur answered questions and made his concluding remarks. At the same meeting, the representative of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya a made statement in exercise of the right of reply. B. General debate on agenda item 9 At the 27th meeting, on 30 September 2009, the Council held a general debate on agenda item 9, during which the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Russian Federation, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine); (b) Representative of an observer State: Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; (c) Observer for Holy See; (d) Observer for an intergovernmental organization: African Union; (e) Observer for a national human rights institution: Human Rights Committee of Qatar (f) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Association for World Citizens, Association for World Education (also on behalf of World Union for Progressive Judaism), B’nai B’rith International (also on behalf of Coordinating Board of Jewish Organization), Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, European Union for Public Relations, Institute for Women Studies and Research, International Association against Torture, International Club for Peace Research, International Human Rights Association for American Minorities, International Humanist and Ethical Union, International Institute for Peace, International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, Liberation, Ligue Internationale contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme, Mouvement Contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des droits de l'homme (also on behalf of Espace Afrique International and Interfaith International), United Nations Watch. X. Technical assistance and capacity-building A. Interactive dialogue with special procedures Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia At the 28th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, Surya Prasad Subedi, presented his report (A/HRC/12/40). At the same meeting, the representative of Cambodia made a statement as the concerned country. During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the Independent Expert questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: China, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Australia, Canada, Ireland, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Singapore, Thailand; (c) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Human Rights Watch, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, United Nations Watch. At the same meeting, the Special Rapporteur answered questions and made his concluding remarks. Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia At the 28th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia, Shamsul Bari, presented his report (A/HRC/12/44). At the same meeting, the representative of Somalia made a statement as the concerned country. During the ensuing interactive dialogue at the same meeting, the following made statements and asked the Independent Expert questions: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Italy, Norway, Nigeria (also on behalf of the Group of African States), Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union), Tunisia2 (on behalf of the Group of Arab States), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America; (b) Representatives of the following observer States: Algeria, Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, Switzerland, Yemen; (c) Observer for an intergovernmental organization: Organization of the Islamic Conference; (d) Observers for the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Human Rights Watch, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations. At the same meeting, the Independent Expert answered questions and made his concluding remarks. B. General debate on agenda item 10 At the 29th meeting, on 1 October 2009, the Council held a general debate on the country-specific reports submitted under agenda item 2 and introduced by the Deputy High Commissioner under agenda item 10, during which the following made statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Council: Belgium, Brazil, Sweden2 (on behalf of the European Union, Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine); (b) Representative of an observer State: Viet Nam; (c) Observer for the following non-governmental organizations: Association for World Citizens, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Human Rights Watch, Interfaith International, Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme. C. Consideration and action on draft proposals Advisory services and technical assistance for Cambodia At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Japan introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.18, sponsored by Japan and co-sponsored by Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand and Norway. Subsequently, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and United States of America joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Japan orally revised the draft resolution by modifying operative paragraphs 1, 5 and 7. Also at the same meeting, the representative of Cambodia made a statement as a concerned country. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/25). Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights At the 32nd meeting, on 2 October 2009, the representative of Nigeria (on behalf of the Group of African States) introduced draft resolution A/HRC/12/L.29/Rev.1, sponsored by Nigeria and co-sponsored by Norway. Subsequently, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia (on behalf of Arab Group), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Yemen joined the sponsors. At the same meeting, the representative of Somalia made a statement as a concerned country. In accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the attention of the Council was drawn to the estimated administrative and programme budget implications of the draft resolution (see annex II). At the same meeting, the draft resolution was adopted without a vote (for the text as adopted, see part one, chapter I, resolution 12/26). The text of resolutions and decisions adopted will be available on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and will be subsequently included in part one of the final report. Observer of the Council speaking on behalf of States members and observer States   A/HRC/12/L.10 page 136