Written evidence submitted by the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office
1. THE FCO'S
ASSESSMENT OF
HOW THE
HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL IS
WORKING OUT
IN PRACTICE.
Since we last updated the FAC on the UN Human
Rights Council (HRC), the HRC's first members have been elected
(including the UK). It has met in three regular, and four special,
sessions. (First regular session 19-30 June, second session 18
September-6 October (adjourned), resumed second session 27-28
November, third session 29 November-8 December. Special sessions
5-6 July, 11 August, 15 November, 12-13 December).
The General Assembly resolution establishing
the Council left much of the detail of its agenda, working practices,
and tools to the Council itself to develop. In addition, it provided
for a new system of Universal Periodic Review to be created in
the Council's first year; and for a review of the old Commission
on Human Rights' Special Procedures, expert advice body and complaint
procedure, also within one year. The Council therefore continues
to be, to some extent, a work in progress.
Ian McCartney set the tone for the UK's close
engagement in this process during participation at the Council's
inaugural session in June 2006. He delivered a speech on behalf
of the UK: focusing on the complex human rights challenges we
all face; stressing the need for the Human Rights Council to develop
the tools to address them; and emphasising that countries must
work together at the Council to find common solutions, rather
than fostering divisions. In addition, he held a series of bilateral
meetings with Ministerial colleagues from various different regions,
in which he set out the UK's vision of the Council and exchanged
ideas on ho to develop it.
Overall, there have been both constructive and
disappointing developments so far. There is much work still to
do for the Council fully to realise its potential. We remain committed
to working actively for its success. In this context, Ian McCartney
regularly raises the Human Rights Council during visits overseas,
and in contacts with foreign counterparts visiting the UK.
The HRC has made some promising progress. Unanimous
decisions at its first regular sessions provided for the uninterrupted
functioning of the Special Procedures, complaints procedure and
other reporting mechanisms during its first year of transition
and review. The extent and quality of Council dialogue with the
Special Procedures has been positive. The Council considered and
debated more than 40 Special Procedures' reports across a range
of human rights issues at its second regular session. NGO participation
was at a higher level than ever achieved at the previous Commission
on Human Rights. There has been strong NGO involvement overall
in the Council's work. We are also pleased by the close interaction
established between the Council and the High Commissioner for
Human Rights, who has briefed each regular session.
Although still developing its tools, the Council
has taken some positive, concrete steps on substantive human rights
issues. It agreed by consensus at its second session to keep under
consideration two cases under its confidential complaints procedure
(relating to Iran and Uzbekistan). It also agreed consensus resolutions
welcoming progress made and encouraging further steps in the protection
and promotion of human rights in Nepal and Afghanistan. These
resolutions, tabled by Switzerland and the EU respectively, show
the Council able to agree texts on specific countries, including
with the countries concerned. This begins to put into practice
early rhetoric from many delegations favouring co-operative rather
than confrontational means of engaging with individual countries.
In the meantime, the Council has made steady
progress on its institution-building agenda, ie: review of the
mandates of the Special Procedures, expert advice system and complaints
procedure; and creation of the new system of Universal Periodic
Review, a mechanism to examine every state's human rights record.
These are complex tasks, with a wide variety of views to be combined
and reconciled. The Council is maintaining momentum on these;
consensus is beginning to emerge. As with any multilateral negotiation,
the most sensitive decisions will be taken at the end: some of
the most difficult discussions are therefore yet to come. In the
meantime, Ian McCartney has instituted a programme of inviting
Special Procedures and other senior UN officials to Parliament
to talk about their work and increase the UK's engagement with
them. So far this has included Vitit Muntarbhorn, UN Special Rapporteur
on human rights in the DPRK, and Juan Mendez, Special Adviser
to the UN Secretary-General on Genocide.
The Council has been hampered in its early stages
by a lack of clarity at its regular sessions over the organisation
and direction of the sessions' work. For example, the late tabling
in the second session of over 47 individual resolution texts made
it impossible for the session to finish its work within the allotted
timeframe. To some extent this effect is inevitable, as the Council
seeks to move beyond the precedents and practices of its predecessor
body.
However, more problematic, and damaging to the
Council's early work and credibility, has been the questionable
commitment of some of its members to the successful fulfilment
of its mandate. After much early talk of the need to "depoliticise"
UN human rights work and increase dialogue, some regional blocs
have pushed through their own agendas at the expense of others'.
This led to a disproportionate and unbalanced focus on the situation
in the Middle East in July-August. Three Special Sessions were
called on this in four months. It is important for the Council's
credibility to discuss these issues. But it must show it can address
situations and issues with equal focus across its mandate and
across the world. We also want to see those discussions held transparently,
constructively, and in a balanced manner.
The situation in Darfur has been a real test
of members' willingness to address urgent situations of human
rights violation in whatever part of the world they occur. The
Council passed a resolution on 28 November expressing concern
at the situation and calling for certain steps to be taken to
improve it. After long negotiations, this text failed to reflect
our and EU partners' wish to see reference to concrete future
follow-up by the Council. After trying unsuccessfully to amend
the text during the vote, EU members of the Council and 25 others
(33 in all) requested the Council's fourth Special Session, to
discuss Darfur. This session convened from 12-13 December. The
Council agreed a short, operationally-focused decision to dispatch
a high-level expert mission to assess the human rights situation
in Darfur. The mission will report back to the Council's fourth
session in March 2007. We welcome the dispatching of the assessment
mission, and will continue to work actively to make sure that
the Council follows up its recommendations effectively.
Looking ahead, we will continue to work hard
to meet the challenges outlined above. Specifically, we are working
with EU partners to increase the effectiveness of our interventions
in the Council's debate and work. We will intensify efforts to
build partnerships with those countries across the world that,
like us, wish to see an effective and credible Human Rights Council.
We will continue to promote open and balanced dialogue on all
human rights issues, including the most sensitive. Finally, we
continue to work closely with the NGO community to promote our
shared goals for the Council. Ian McCartney has held roundtable
discussions with NGO representatives before every regular session
of the Council, to discuss priorities and listen to NGOs' ideas
on how best to develop the Council. These are consistently constructive
exchanges, which he is committed to continuing.
2. WHAT USE
THE GOVERNMENT
HAS MADE
OF UN PROCEDURES
TO RAISE
HUMAN RIGHTS
ISSUES SINCE
ITS RESPONSE
TO THE
COMMITTEE'S
PREVIOUS REPORT.
We have continued to raise human rights issues
through relevant procedures and at relevant bodies in the UN.
The main focus of these efforts has inevitably been on the UN
Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly Third Committee
(which deals with human rights and social development). However,
human rights issues form an integral part of much of the UN's
work, eg on conflict resolution and prevention, and development
issues. They have therefore remained a key element in the full
range of the UK's work at the UN. This has gone well beyond our
activities in the bodies specifically dedicated to human rights.
For example, we have also continued to raise human rights issues
in the Security Council, the General Assembly plenary, the Economic
and Social Council, and in other ad hoc UN fora. Full details
of the UK's activities in using UN procedures to raise human rights
issues are contained in the attachment to this letter.
3. HOW WELL
THE MEMORANDA
OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH JORDAN,
LIBYA AND
LEBANON ARE
WORKING, AND
WHETHER ANY
FURTHER SUCH
MEMORANDA ARE
DUE TO
COME INTO
FORCE.
Libya
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on deportation
with assurances was signed with the Libyan authorities on 18 October
2005. The related agreement to appoint the official monitoring
body in Libya, the Qadhafi Development Foundation (QDF), was signed
on 8 May 2006. Agreement has also been reached to appoint the
National Council to the Independent Monitoring Boards as the UK
monitoring body. Since the MoU's first test in a court of law,
during the hearing of an appeal against deportation by two Libyans
currently held in the UK, concluded only on 10 November, it is
too soon to assess fully how well it is working. The Court (the
Special Immigration Appeals Commission—SIAC) is now considering
its decision.
During the hearing, the detail, advantages and
reliability of the MoU and the monitoring bodies were covered
in detail by the Government witness, Counsel for the Government
and Counsel for the Appellants. Until SIAC's judgment is handed
down, we will not know how well the MoU and its assurances were
received by the Court, but one aspect of the MoU which has worked
particularly well so far is the co-operation the Libyan authorities
have given to our requests for additional information and/or assurances
in relation to individual deportation cases subject to appeal.
We also believe that the QDF have the ability
and capacity to carry out the full range of duties to oversee
the implementation of the assurances set out in the MoU. The Government
is working, together with the Foundation, to enhance the capabilities
of the QDF in preparation for its monitoring role. This includes
plans for training in international human rights law and recognising
torture.
Jordan
The MoU with Jordan was signed on 10 August
2005. A monitoring body (the Adaleh Centre) was appointed on 13
February 2006. Their terms of reference will allow them to monitor,
unrestricted, an individual who is returned to Jordan under the
MoU. The first Jordanian MoU case (Abu Qatada) was heard by SIAC
in March/April 2006. A judgment is expected shortly. Jordanian
co-operation during this hearing was excellent. We are most grateful
to the Jordanians for their continued assistance and support for
the MoU and we believe, strongly, that the Jordanians will adhere
to the terms of the MoU as and when any individuals are returned.
The Government is working with the monitoring body in Jordan to
enhance its capabilities in preparation for its monitoring role.
Training has been carried out in international human rights law.
There are two further Jordanian cases being
prepared, to be heard by SIAC in the early part of 2007. Jordanian
co-operation on both these cases continues and there is good understanding
by the Jordanians as to the importance of the MoU to the UK.
Lebanon
The MoU with Lebanon was signed on 23 December
2005. No Lebanese cases have yet come before SIAC and no one has
been deported to Lebanon under the terms of the MoU.
As the Committee may be aware, the framework
for deportations to Algeria is not an MoU but an Exchange of Letters
on deportation between the Prime Minister and President Bouteflika
that was concluded during the President's visit to London on 11
July 2006. This high level exchange is supplemented by individual
assurances in each case.
The Government judges that based on these arrangements
it can deport terrorist suspects to Algeria while remaining consistent
with the UK's domestic and international human rights obligations.
This judgment is based on the changing circumstances in Algeria—in
particular the Algeria Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation,
on the rapidly developing relationship between the UK and Algeria
and on the assurances given by the Algerian Government on individual
deportees.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission has
so far (14 December) heard four Algerian cases. Judgment has been
handed down in two of those cases. In both, SIAC found it would
be safe to deport the Appellant to Algeria.
We are pursuing MoUs with a number of other
countries. We will talk about these when the MoUs have been concluded.
4. ANY DEVELOPMENTS
IN HUMAN
RIGHTS IN
CHINA AND
TIBET OR
IN THE
HUMAN RIGHTS
DIALOGUE WITH
CHINA SINCE
THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE TO
THE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT ON
EAST ASIA.
Following the reported shooting of one or more
Tibetans on the Nangpa La Pass on 30 September, we have been working
bilaterally and with the EU to seek an urgent and transparent
investigation by the Chinese Government. The EU raised the incident
with the Chinese Government at the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue,
held in Beijing on 19 October 2006. The Chinese authorities confirmed
the incident took place and claimed that the border guards were
acting in self-defence. Other accounts appear to contradict this.
The EU followed up on 19 December and was told by the Chinese
authorities that the incident was a border management issue and
there was nothing new to report. The Chinese Government said it
is doing its utmost to take care of all those involved, with a
special emphasis on the well-being of the children.
Ian McCartney wrote to Vice Foreign Minister
Zhang Yesui on 13 December proposing dates for the next round
of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue, which is due to take place
in London in 2007. He included suggestions on taking forward the
dialogue, with a view to improving the process and achieving more
concrete results. We hope to have a response by the New Year.
The Committee will receive a separate response
concerning the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue by 25 January 2007.
We had undertaken to provide this by 18 December, but agreed with
the Committee to delay this response until after the EU has discussed
improvements to the dialogue, including the Committee's recommendations,
in more detail at the next round of the EU's working group on
human rights on 17 January.[1]
Richard Cooke
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Team, Foreign
and Commonwealth Office
11 January 2007
1 See Ev 90 and Ev 130 Back
| 
