Lead unprecedented attacks on independent human rights experts and Sudan mandate
PRESS RELEASE
(19 June, 2009, Geneva) — The 11th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), from 2-19 June, witnessed a barrage of attacks leveled at the Council’s credibility and effectiveness, which were largely initiated or lead by Arab League and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) member states, said the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) today.
“I am afraid such attacks, while exceptionally strong this session, are not surprising,” said Moataz El Fegiery, Executive Director of CIHRS. “They are part of a larger strategy by the Arab League and OIC to systematically weaken international human rights bodies.”
Before this Council session even started, the OIC, lead by Pakistan, issued a letter threatening to strip Frank La Rue, the current Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, of his position unless he conformed to the OIC’s interpretation of his mandate. The letter was followed up by similar oral threats directed at him during the plenary of the HRC, including by Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), United Arab Emirates (on behalf of the Arab Group), Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC), and individual delegations such as Algeria, Malaysia, Sudan and Yemen. Soon after, a more diverse group of states also leveled similar attacks against the Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings.
These threats were followed up by a resolution put forward by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which attempted to limit the independence and freedom of expression of the entire independent expert system at the HRC- the heart of the international human rights system. On 11 June, in a joint open letter to the HRC, human rights NGOs from around the world responded that these “political attacks” as “a threat to the Council itself,” and “appealed, in the strongest terms” for states at the HRC to “ensure that the long term integrity and credibility of the Human Rights Council itself is not sacrificed to political expedience.” The final NAM resolution adopted by the HRC did not include the most damaging aspects of the original.
The other major threat to the Council came when Egypt and Sudan led an attempt to have the grave and ongoing human rights situation in Sudan, including the humanitarian crises in Darfur, completely eliminated from the HRC’s agenda. Egypt, claiming to represent the African group, tabled a resolution that would have done away with any HRC mechanism on Sudan.
However, key African and Asian states rose above immediate political interests and emerged as last minute heroes. Uganda, Zambia, Mauritius, Senegal, Gabon and Angola all took principled decisions not to silence human rights victims, and preserve the existence of an independent expert on human rights in Sudan at the HRC.
In a stirring speech after the vote on Sudan, Uganda—indirectly addressing Egypt, the head of the African group—asserted: “We look forward to a time when the positions of the [African] group are represented accurately…From the Holocaust to apartheid to the genocide in Rwanda we were always reminded that never again should we allow these events to happen through inaction or political expediency…today we reassert the credibility of the Human Rights Council.”
Contac t:
Arabic- Ziad Abdel Tawab, Program Officer (CIHRS)- abdeltawab@cihrs.org
English- Jeremie Smith, Director- Geneva Office (CIHRS)- jsmith@cihrs.org
Share this Post