- Resolution on the protection of Human Rights Defenders
- Resolution on the elaboration of international complementary standards to the ICERD
Resolution on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
Statement by Idriss Jazaïry, Ambassador,
Permanent Representative of Algeria in Geneva..
* * * * *
Geneva, 26 March 2010
Mr President,
I wish to comment on 3 resolutions:
1 - We congratulate Norway for its initiative on human rights defenders which was pursued in a transparent and inclusive manner. It is unfortunate however that the resolution does not address the dire predicament of human rights defenders in situations of foreign occupation. We hope Norway will correct this serious omission in its future resolutions on this theme
2- I wish to congratulate the Council for having finally adopted yesterday the continuing resolution to enable the Ad Hoc Committee on complementary standards to ICERD to fulfil its mandate. Values which the Council stands for won by a narrow margin over the NIMBY syndrome whereby some States see human rights related to contemporary forms of xenophobia and of racial and religious profiling as not calling for further obligations for them to undertake.
We need to steer clear in the future of two contradictions in debating the pursuit of the Ad Hoc Committee’s mandate:
The first is to question the legitimacy of the mandate given to the Committee by this Council’s decision 3/103, by invoking the fact that it was the result of a vote where some Members voted against, while upholding in the same breath the legitimacy of other mandates given by Council’s resolutions which are also the result of a vote with negative votes from other Members, but which deal with the appointment of a country specific Mandate Holder.
The second has to do with the acceptability or not, of engaging in the elaboration of a protocol to introduce complementary standards. When initiated by concerned developing countries to address a tidal wave of evolving contemporary forms of xenophobia, racial and religious profiling and even of State sponsored discrimination at airports based on creed and nationality, it is opposed. But when the elaboration of a protocol is initiated by other groups of countries in relation to the Convention on the rights of the Child at the same session, the protocol idea is adopted with a nod and without any suggestion that the issue should be referred back to outside experts as suggested by some for the Ad Hoc Committee’s business. I note with regret that under L.5 op 3 on the optional protocol on the Rights of the Child, the Chair is invited to submit a proposal for a draft protocol to the next session of the Working Group, an option which was strenuously denied to the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee by the very same core group of States that sponsored L.5.
These two contradictions are just further instances of the double standards that pollute our debates.
The election of a major country to this Council, one which had walked the walk of civil rights, has given hope to many of our nations. We saw it as a unique historical opportunity for it to exercise leadership of its regional group to bring it round to accepting additional international obligations to contain and reverse this sinister wave of xenophobia and islamophobia. The eight months to the next meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee will provide an opportunity to give substance to this hope. We must seize it.
Finally to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Mexico I wish also to pay tribute for his promoting of compromise through mutual accommodation on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The technical glitch in O.P. 19 can, I am sure, be corrected in due course.
