Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

Burundi + 1 more

Human Rights Council extends mandate of Commission of Inquiry on Burundi

(excerpts)

Adopts Five Resolutions, including on Syria, the Administration of Justice, the Question of the Death Penalty and Conscientious Objection to Military Service

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted five resolutions in which it extended the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, and decided to convene a high-level panel discussion on violations of the human rights of children in Syria. Other texts concerned the administration of justice, including juvenile justice; the question of the death penalty; and conscientious objection to military service.

By a vote of 22 in favour, 11 against, and 14 abstentions, the Council adopted a resolution in which it extended for a period of one year the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi in order to deepen and continue its investigations.

In a resolution on the human rights situation in Syria, adopted by a vote of 27 in favour, seven against, and 13 abstentions, the Council decided to convene a high-level panel discussion on violations of the human rights of children in Syria at the thirty-seventh session of the Human Rights Council, in consultation with the Commission of Inquiry, with a specific focus on attacks against children, including attacks on schools and hospitals and denial of humanitarian access.

In a resolution on human rights in the administration of justice, including juvenile justice, the Council called upon the High Commissioner to strengthen advisory services and technical assistance relating to national capacity-building in the field of the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice.

By a vote of 27 in favour, 13 against and seven abstentions as orally revised, the Council requested the Secretary-General to dedicate the 2019 supplement to his quinquennial report on capital punishment to the consequences arising at various stages of the imposition and application of the death penalty on the enjoyment of the human rights of persons facing the death penalty and other affected persons. The Council decided that the upcoming biennial high-level panel discussion to be held at the fortieth session of the Human Rights Council would address human rights violations related to the use of the death penalty.

In a resolution on conscientious objection to military service, the Council requested the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a report on different approaches and challenges with regard to application procedures for obtaining the status of conscientious objector to military service in accordance with human rights standards, and to present the report to the Human Rights Council at its forty-first session.

Introducing draft texts were Austria, Benin, Mongolia, Russian Federation, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Croatia also on behalf of Costa Rica and Poland, Estonia on behalf of the European Union, United Kingdom on behalf of a group of countries, and Qatar.

Burundi and Syria spoke as concerned countries.

Speaking in general comments were Latvia on behalf of the European Union, Brazil, Egypt on behalf of a group of countries, and the United States.

Speaking in an explanation of the vote before or after the vote were the United States, Switzerland, Panama, Germany, Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Belgium, United Kingdom, Egypt on behalf of a group of countries, Iraq, China, Japan, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Brazil, Botswana, Cuba, Egypt and Ecuador.

The Council will next meet at noon to continue taking action on decisions and resolutions before it closes its thirty-sixth session.

[...]

Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Burundi

In a resolution (A/HRC/36/L.9/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in Burundi, adopted by a vote of 22 in favour, 11 against, and 14 abstentions, the Council expresses its deep concern about the continuing serious human rights situation and the worsening economic and humanitarian situation in Burundi, which affects, in particular, women and children; and requests the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi to present its report, including any necessary follow-up action, to the General Assembly at its seventy-second session. The Council decides to extend for a period of one year the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi in order to deepen and continue its investigations, and requests the Commission to present an oral briefing to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth sessions and a final report during an interactive dialogue at its thirty-ninth session and at the seventy-third session of the General Assembly. The Council urges the Government of Burundi to cooperate fully with the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, to authorize it to conduct visits to the country and to provide it with all the information necessary to fulfil its mandate.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (22): Albania, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Croatia, El Salvador, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (11): Bolivia, Burundi, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Abstentions (14): Bangladesh, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Togo and Tunisia.

Estonia, introducing on behalf of the European Union draft resolution L.9/Rev.1 as orally revised, said the European Union had decided to present a procedural resolution aimed at the technical renewal of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi. The oral revision had been necessary to avoid all possible contradictions with the resolution submitted at the last minute by a number of African countries. It was crucial that the Council renewed the mandate of the Commission for another year. The European Union welcomed Burundi’s stated intention to cooperate with the international community to improve the situation of human rights, not least as a member of the Human Rights Council. The Members of the Council owed it to the victims of human rights violations and abuses to take meaningful actions. All Member States of the Council were urged to adopt the resolution by consensus.

Burundi, speaking as the concerned country, thanked the African Union for their solidarity and continued commitment to improve human rights on the African continent and throughout the world. Burundi had spared no effort to cooperate with the European Union on the draft resolution. However, the European Union had not taken into consideration what was going on in the country. The European Union wanted to instrumentalise the Human Rights Council. Politicisation did not improve human rights at all and it in fact violated the human rights of the victims of violations. Only international cooperation would contribute to the protection of human rights across the world. The mechanism adopted by the Council yesterday was sufficiently strong and Burundi expected the European Union to withdraw the draft resolution on Burundi. Burundi thus asked for a vote on the draft resolution, and it asked all to vote against it.

Brazil, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the text was the result of long and complex negotiations. Brazil commended the efforts to find common ground, but regretted that consensus could not be reached. Brazil was concerned about the situation in Burundi. It urged that human rights violators be held responsible. Sustainable outcomes on the ground were needed. By its very nature, the Human Rights Council should aim to elicit dialogue in the promotion of human rights. Brazil remained ready to engage constructively in all parts for this resolution.

Botswana, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, regretted the Human Rights Council’s inability to reach consensus on this resolution. Botswana put a very high premium against the abuses of human rights. Abuses should not be tolerated anywhere. Women and children were particularly affected. Therefore, Botswana would not condone human rights violations. It chose to forgo political interests, and remained on the side of those who suffered violence. It wished for others what they wished for themselves. Human rights should never be subjected to political interests. The Human Rights Council had failed and had only succeeded in producing two polarized texts, which did not have the victims of human rights in Burundi as the central priority. Botswana hoped that the Commission of Inquiry would further complement the efforts, and would vote yes to renew the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed concern about continued violence in Burundi. The refusal to cooperate with the Commission of Inquiry had demonstrated disdain for the Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council had to maintain its resolve to act on Burundi. The Commission of Inquiry had gathered valuable information, including some violations by Burundian officials. Not only were extrajudicial killings and sexual violence continuing to occur in Burundi, but large parts of the population were now refugees. The people of Burundi deserved better. If Burundi was genuinely interested in working with the Council, it should allow the Commission of Inquiry access to Burundi, and let them see for themselves. The Human Rights Council’s credibility would suffer. That was why the United States supported the European Union proposal, would vote yes on the resolution, and urged all to vote yes too.

Switzerland, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that no consensus has been found between the two draft resolutions on Burundi and regretted that they had been submitted in parallel. A joint text would have been preferable. The polarization of the Council went against the common goals. Switzerland was disappointed that delegations were presented with a revised version at the last minute, a working method that did not reflect what ought to be cultivated. The resolution L.9 called on the Government of Burundi to restore full cooperation with the High Commissioner and supported the reopening of the presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bujumbura. The resolution also set out for a furthering of investigations, and for all those reasons Switzerland voted no yesterday, and today would vote in favour of L.9.

Action on Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic

In a resolution (A/HRC/36/L.22) on the human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, adopted by a vote of 27 in favour, seven against, and 13 abstentions, the Council expresses grave concern at the use of sarin in Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017, resulting in approximately 100 fatalities, and the use of sulphur mustard in Umm Hawsh on 16 September 2016, as concluded by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and looks forward to the results of the investigations into these incidents by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism; recalls with grave concern the report of the Commission of Inquiry on 6 September 2017 identifying the Syrian air force as responsible for the sarin gas attack on Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017; expresses deep concern at the Commission of Inquiry’s conclusion that children throughout the Syrian Arab Republic remain disproportionately vulnerable to violence and abuse, and that children suffer as a consequence of attacks against civilians, lack of access to education and their recruitment for use as child soldiers; decides to convene a high-level panel discussion on violations of the human rights of children in the Syrian Arab Republic at the thirty-seventh session of the Human Rights Council, in consultation with the Commission of Inquiry, with a specific focus on attacks against children, including attacks on schools and hospitals and denial of humanitarian access, featuring witness testimony and Syrian voices, including children’s views through appropriate and safe means; requests the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a summary report on the high-level panel discussion, to be presented to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-eighth session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (27): Albania, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, El Salvador, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Togo, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (7): Bolivia, Burundi, China, Cuba, Iraq, Philippines and Venezuela.

Abstentions (13): Bangladesh, Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nigeria, South Africa and Tunisia.

United Kingdom, introducing on behalf of a group of countries draft resolution L.22, noted that the international community had to take a unified stance on the situation in Syria. It was concerned about repeated attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, which caused untold suffering. It was civilians in the country who were shouldering most of the impact, especially children. The international community had to do everything possible to end the abuses that they faced. There had to be accountability and the sponsors thus strongly supported the work of the Commission of Inquiry and the Independent International Impartial Mechanism. Countries should put aside their differences and give due consideration to the draft resolution.

Qatar, also introducing draft resolution L.22, noted that the text reflected the concerns of the international community regarding gross violations in Syria and condemned abuses committed by all sides, terrorist attacks by ISIS and all violations committed against women, children and persons with disabilities. It condemned attacks on schools, hospitals and chemical weapons, starvation and siege against civilians, and forced displacement. It called on Syrian authorities and all parties to ensure humanitarian access to all areas. It called on all parties to ensure a peaceful solution under the auspices of the United Nations, as well as a ceasefire all over the country.

Latvia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said the resolution welcomed the work of the Commission of Inquiry and called for an end to impunity. Syrian authorities and others should refrain from some actions, and millions of Syrians needed humanitarian aid. A panel on attacks against children was welcomed for the March session. The European Union looked forward to reports from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The European Union had been working to ensure that financial pledges of $ 10 billion were met. The European Union would host a second conference to ensure work was carried out in a consistent manner. The Brussels process would put the process at the service of the international community. For all the above reasons, all Member States were urged to support the draft resolution.

Switzerland, speaking in a general comment, expressed concern about violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict in Syria and thanked the Commission of Inquiry for its exemplary work over the last six years. All forces as well as those with influence in Syria should ensure the protection of medical infrastructure in Syria. Switzerland regretted that some paragraphs weakened the general applicability of the text. It remained indispensable that justice be served to all victims. The Commission of Inquiry and the international mechanism should cooperation closely. Switzerland reiterated its longstanding call for the situation to be referred to the International Criminal Court.

United States, speaking in a general comment, said it fully supported the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry and called attention to its critical work investigating egregious human rights violations and abuses, as well as violations of international humanitarian law. The Syrian Government remained responsible for the vast majority of the Syrian people’s suffering. The United States called on all countries that supported accountability and justice for Syrians to join them in voting for this resolution. It welcomed the resolution’s strong condemnation of the systematic, widespread and gross violations and abuses of human rights and all violations of international humanitarian law by the Syrian Government and its allies, as well as the abuses committed by ISIS. It condemned the regime’s continued attacks against hospitals and schools, besiegement and the forced displacement of civilian populations. It shared the Commission of Inquiry’s concern about the impact of the conflict on children who remained among the most vulnerable. The list of egregious acts committed by the Syrian Government was long and included unlawful killing; arbitrary detention; torture; sexual and gender-based violence; besiegement; airstrikes on doctors, hospitals, clinics and place of worships; removal of medical supplies from aid convoys; and use of chemical weapons.

Syria, speaking as the concerned country, said draft resolution L.22 represented a new attempt to mislead the Human Rights Council by States which had dishonest interests on the ground that had nothing to do with the human rights situation in Syria. The resolution deliberately ignored crimes committed by terrorist groups and provided them with a political cover to continue the crimes. It placed these groups on an equal footing with the Government of Syria. It ignored violations by the United States-led international alliance which shelled schools and deliberately caused the death of thousands of civilians. It was drafted by countries which supported terrorism, financed it, and opened their borders for terrorists and arms. One could not talk about the political or legal legitimacy of these countries. At a time when weapons and armed forces were found in the territory of Syria without the consent of the Government, the Government was committed to protecting its people against terrorism and was determined to promote the rights of its citizens throughout the country. Syria condemned the lies about its alleged use of chemical weapons and other lies, and regretted that its clarifications fell on deaf ears. Syria had shown serious interest in participating in the Peace Talks in Geneva. However, the sponsors of the resolution reiterated the biased nature of the Human Rights Council and forced Syria to vote against the resolution.

Cuba, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated its condemnation of innocent civilian deaths and rejected any attempt to undermine the territorial integrity of the Arab State. Interventionist agendas must be left to one side, and the international community must provide support to safeguard peace and stability in Syria. Cuba reiterated its support for the search for a peaceful and negotiated solution in Syria. The draft resolution before the Human Rights Council did not contribute to that goal, so the draft resolution L.22 should be subject to a vote, and Cuba would vote against it.

Egypt, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it was following developments in Syria closely and had decided to take a position according to the Council item which it rejected because it was not accepted by the concerned country. The situation in Syria had ramifications for the entire Middle East. The current resolution was imbalanced when it came to perpetrators of human rights violations. The resolution included references to the International Criminal Court about which there was a very clear position. Egypt would abstain from voting on the draft resolution.

Ecuador, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated concern at the human rights situation and humanitarian crisis in certain parts of Syria. Ecuador could not support resolutions or Special Procedures targeting specific countries if the participation of other States through military interventions had not been taken into account. Ecuador highlighted the need for the work of the Council to be based on impartiality and universality. Ecuador called for the protection of all human rights of the entire Syrian population in the context of the transparent monitoring and support of the entire United Nations. Ecuador would abstain on the draft resolution.

Brazil, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said although it would vote in favour of the resolution, it was of the view that the text remained unbalanced and did not favour a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The responsibility of all parties, directly or indirectly involved in the violations and abuses of human rights and humanitarian law, must not be overlooked. All violations had to be equally addressed. Brazil rejected any proposal that singled out some violators against others. There was no solution other than a peaceful solution with dialogue. Brazil called upon all those with influence on the conflict to overcome their differences and to put an end to the suffering by citizens. A common ground, led by the Syrian people, with full respect to these people, was long overdue. The Human Rights Council had to take into account the need to find remedies for these people.

Albania, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it remained very concerned by the alarming human rights situation in Syria. Appalling violations continued unabated in the country, while there remained impunity for the widespread violations and abuses which had been perpetrated since 2011. As the Commission of Inquiry had stated in its most recent report, it was civilians in Syria who made up the overwhelming majority of casualties in the conflict. It was therefore necessary that the Human Rights Council respond once again through a resolution. Albania expressed its support for the draft resolution, which reflected a range of the most serious concerns in Syria and accurately reflected the key human rights issues on the ground at the moment. It encouraged others to join it in doing so.

Iraq, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated its support for a solution that would lead to an end to the bloodletting of Syria’s people. Iraq also backed all initiatives which aimed to put an end to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Iraq viewed that the tabling of the draft resolution under item 4 would not serve the political peaceful settlement of the crisis. It also ignored positive developments. Therefore Iraq would vote against the draft resolution.

Indonesia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed concern at the ongoing conflict in Syria. Indonesia shared the concerns raised on the impact of the conflict on women and internally displaced persons. The draft resolution failed to address those issues and would contribute little to improvements on the ground. The Human Rights Council should support inclusive dialogue without any preconditions. All relevant peaceful actors needed to work together. Indonesia would therefore abstain on the draft resolution.

Venezuela, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it would vote against the draft resolution. In various multilateral fora, there was selectiveness and double standards. Venezuela rejected the interference and intervention ongoing in Syria. Venezuela reiterated its support for an inclusive dialogue that would allow the country to move towards lasting peace.

China, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, believed that a political solution was the right approach to protect human rights in Syria. The discussion should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. The draft text was not in compliance with those principles. Therefore, China would vote against the draft resolution.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC/17/159E