RESOLUTIONS ON ALL FIVE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 GENEVA 001637

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR IO/RHS, DRL/MLA, L/HRR

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS ON ALL FIVE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
WORKING GROUPS EASILY PASS


GENEVA 00001637 001.2 OF 002


Summary
--------------


1. The Human Rights Council (HRC) passed resolutions on all
five inter-governmental working groups during the June 29-30
conclusions and recommendations portion of the inaugural
session. Discussion on the working group resolutions took
place June 26-27, at which time the United States delivered
statements expressing concern or opposition to the reports
emanating from each of the working groups. As expected,
Enforced Disappearances, the draft Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP),the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, the Right to Development, and Durban all easily
passed and were met by only a few reservations from various
HRC member states. Four of the five resolutions were passed
by consensus. The only vote was on the DRIP, which passed by
a 30-2-12 vote. (Note: Canada and Russia voted "no.") USDel
statements and documents on each of the working groups may be
found on Mission Geneva's Internet website. A summary on each
resolution follows. End Summary.

Enforced Disappearance (A/HRC/1/L.2)
--------------


2. Adopted on June 29 by consensus. A number of states made
explanations of vote. Significantly, Canada, the UK, and
India spoke to the issue of criminal intent. India also said
it objected to the exclusion of "non-state actors" in the
document. RESULT: The International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance will
now go to the General Assembly for adoption. U.S. POSITION:
USDel's June 27 statement noted that it had submitted a
document for circulation specifying its legal concerns with
the draft convention.

Indigenous (A/HRC/1/L.3)
--------------


3. Adopted on June 29 with a vote of 30-2-12. Canada and
Russia voted "no." Fourteen member states made explanations
of vote. India, Bangladesh, Morocco, Philippines, UK,
Germany, Japan, Brazil, Argentina all noted that
self-determination for indigenous persons does not impair
territorial integrity or political unity. The UK, Germany,
and Japan stated that collective rights in the DRIP are not
human rights. In general comments, Peru and France stated
that the DRIP would be subject to national constitutions.
Canada said little on interpretation but noted that the
declaration did not develop customary law and did not apply
to them. Russia spoke to self-determination. RESULT: The
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples will now go to the General Assembly for adoption.
U.S. POSITION: During the June 27 discussion on the working
group, Australian PermRep Caroline Millar delivered a joint
statement on behalf of the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand
opposing the adoption of the Declaration.

Optional Protocol to ICESCR (A/HRC/1/L.4)
--------------


GENEVA 00001637 002.2 OF 002



4. Adopted on June 29 by consensus. Canada asked us to
participate in the drafting session and noted that, now that
the ESCR working group is set, the EU is likely to split.
RESULT: The Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights will have its mandate extended by two years; it will
begin work on a first draft optional protocol to be used as a
basis for future negotiations. U.S. POSITION: In its June 27
statement, USDel opposed the mandate to draft an optional
protocol citing procedural and substantive reasons.

Right to Development (A/HRC/1/L.7)
--------------


5. Adopted on June 30 by consensus. Canada said it would
prefer continuing dialogue on this issue, but ultimately
joined consensus. RESULT: The Working Group on the Right to
Development will request the High-Level Task Force on the
Implementation of the Right to Development to meet for five
days by the end of 2006 with a view toward implementing
recommendations from the working group's seventh session
report. U.S. POSITION: On June 26, USDel expressed its
opposition to Right to Development, stating our
interpretation of the term to mean an individual's right to
develop through the exercise of the full range of civil and
political rights.

Durban (A/HRC/1/L.8)
--------------


6. Adopted on June 30 (after PBI distributed) by consensus.
Before joining consensus, Canada said that it did not think a
new instrument was needed and noted that implementation of
CERD and other existing instruments was the real solution in
fighting racial discrimination. RESULT: The
Inter-Governmental Working Group on the Effective
Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of
Action will have its mandate extended by three years; in
close consultations with regional groups, OHCHR is to select
five experts (from each regional group) to study substantive
gaps in existing instruments and provide recommendations at
the working group's fifth session. U.S. POSITION: In its
June 26 statement, USDel called for full implementation of
the CERD and opposed the drafting of a new instrument.

TICHENOR