OHCHR Holds Interactive Dialogue on the Prevention of Genocide and Starts Dialogue on Human Rights
Council Hears Presentation of Thematic Reports Under Agenda Item Three on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus. The Council also heard the presentation of thematic reports under agenda item three on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.
Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, said while new technologies had connected people, they had also been used for online surveillance and harassment, resulting in an exponential spread of online hate speech, often instrumentalised for political gain, that fomented division, violence, and in the most serious cases, atrocity crimes. The increasing number of migrants and asylum seekers dying in transit, including at sea, constituted risk factors for atrocity crimes. The imperative to prevent genocide was legal and moral. This included acting early on the warning signs and indicators of risk, including violence and discrimination based on identity, hate speech and systematic violations of fundamental rights against civilian populations. The failure to promptly respond to those warning signs allowed genocide to happen. The prevention of genocide and related crimes was closely linked to ensuring accountability. Failure to hold perpetrators accountable and allowing impunity increased the risk of future genocides.
In the discussion on the prevention of genocide, some speakers said 75 years after the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the risks of new genocides still existed. The international community was firmly committed to continue working with national and international partners, including civil society, to realise the promise of the responsibility to protect and to prevent genocide. There were always warning signs before genocide happened, some speakers said. It was typically preceded by discriminatory practices against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and patterns of human rights violations and abuses. A proper identification of those signs and a prompt reaction to them, helped by the Secretary-General’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, was an important first step towards preventing genocide. A number of speakers said there was no excuse for the failure to properly address situations where genocide was at risk of occurring.
Speaking in the discussion were the European Union, Denmark on behalf of a group of countries, United Kingdom on behalf of a group of countries, Costa Rica on behalf of a group of countries, Armenia on behalf of a group of countries, Ukraine on behalf of a group of countries, Liechtenstein, Germany, Israel, Italy, Costa Rica, Luxembourg, Armenia, United States, Australia, France, Iraq, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, Malawi, China, Switzerland, Cuba, Russian Federation, Montenegro, Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Rwanda, Panama, Cambodia, Greece, Türkiye, Argentina, United Kingdom and Indonesia.
Also speaking were the Commission nationale indépendante des droits de l'homme (Burundi), as well as the following non-governmental organizations: Jubilee Campaign, International Service for Human Rights, Conselho Indigenista Missionário, British Humanist Association, Centre for Global Nonkilling, China Ethnic Minorities’ Association for External Exchanges, Every Casualty Worldwide, World Jewish Congress, Sikh Human Rights Group, and the International Council of Russian Compatriots.
The Council then heard the presentation of six thematic reports submitted by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office.
Peggy Hicks, Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the reports included the Office’s oral report to the Council on the implementation of the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy across its programmes and operations; the report on the impact of technological advances on the prevention of genocide efforts and on the risks of the perpetration of genocide; the report on the implementation and enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; the report on the negative human rights impact of civilian acquisition, possession and use of firearms and underlying root causes and risk factors driving the availability of firearms and firearms-related violence; the report on the relationship between human rights and technical standard-setting processes for new and emerging technologies and the practical application of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to the activities of technology companies; and the compendium of good practices of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in relation to access to medicines and vaccines in the context of the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
With this presentation, the Council concluded its consideration of item three on its agenda, namely the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. Speaking in right of reply at the end of the item were Thailand, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Armenia, Japan, China and Republic of Moldova.
The Council then started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus.
Anaïs Marin, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, said since assuming the mandate five years ago, they had witnessed a steady deterioration of the human rights situation in Belarus, notably as repression reached unprecedented levels in 2020. The situation remained catastrophic today and was unfortunately worsening. The policy of the Government had effectively eradicated independent human rights defence groups from the Belarusian landscape, and complicated the work of international mechanisms established to monitor the human rights situation in the country. The report to the Council focused on freedom of expression and highlighted the continuing repression against independent media and trade unions and restrictions to academic freedom. Ms. Marin said the international community needed to continue gathering evidence of human rights violations, while continuing to seek engagement with the Belarusian Government.
Belarus was not present in the room to take the floor as a country concerned.
In the discussion on Belarus, some speakers said the human rights situation in Belarus was appalling, and strongly condemned the systematic and widespread violations of international human rights law in Belarus, including unlawful deprivation of life and numerous cases of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture and other ill-treatment, as well as sexual and gender-based violence. Belarus had a climate of ongoing political repression against many groups of the population, with an ongoing impunity for human rights violations, which could represent crimes against humanity. Speakers also strongly condemned the continued impunity for the excessive and disproportionate use of force during protests and deliberate attacks against civil society, pro-democratic movements, human rights defenders, persons belonging to national minorities, journalists and other independent media workers, and independent labour and trade unions members.