Voici quelques notes sur la réunion de ce matin à l’Hôtel Intercontinental à Genève sur la présentation du Rapport de Glion III "Turning international norms into local reality: Are we seeing a new human rights ‘implementation agenda’? », organisée par les Missions permanentes de la Norvège et de la Suisse.


Le "Concept Paper" comme les Rapports sont disponibles en ligne
H.E. Hans BRATTSKAR, Permanent Representative of Norway, H.E. Valentin ZELLWEGER, Permanent Representative of Switzerland : Glion is a joint effort by Norway and Switzerland, with the support of the « Human Rights Group » ( www.universal-rights.org ).
H.E. Kyong-Lim CHOI, President of the Human Rights Council: Turning our words into concrete action.
Mr. Eric TISTOUNET, Chief, Human Rights Council Branch, OHCHR : what about the follow up, about prevention? There is a lot of frustration in Geneva and in New York aout Human Rights compliance… Strengthen the HR system… and the link between Geneva and the field… and not only with UPR… and thematic reports…and Special Rapporteurs… Aren’t we somewhat lost in translation? In ten years of Human Rights Council, what did we achieve? The message is somewhat confused. 155 meetings during the year are not able to deal with violations… Everything is blurred… No clear coherence between various agendas. We have to face those challenges, to seize an opportunity to focus our discussion on compliance, implementation in an efficient manner. Find ways to organize panels and go beyond general debate…Find ways to work between sessions, in particular in interactive dialogues, in Geneva or elsewhere, to focus on issues and situations.
Ambassadeur ZELLWEGER : il faut trouver des moyens de faire d’un opéra wagnérien un processus efficace pour la protection des Droits de l’Homme, par des discussions informelles qui permettent de mieux développer des compréhensions mutuelles. Le Rapport de Glion III lancé aujourd’hui, rédigé par « Universal Rights Group » tient compte des perspectives du Haut Commissariat, des Etats, de la société civile et du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme.
Ms. Shahrzad TADJBAKHSH, Chief, UPR Branch, OHCR : we need a continuous engagement over the longer term, we need a standing capacity, we need the emergence and evolution of single national implementation, coordination and reporting structures in order to stimulate national dialogues between the Government, the Parliament, the Judiciary and civil society. The international community could benefit from this national dialogue.
H.E. Elayne WHYTE GÓMEZ, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica : Costa Rica streamlined national coordination, implementation and reporting, encouraged by Norway.
Mr. Iniyan ILANGO, FORUM ASIA ( www.forum-asia.org ) : "FORUM-ASIA" is a membership-based organization, with 47 member organizations in 16 countries across South Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. Our mission is to promote and protect all human rights, including the right to development, through collaboration and cooperation among human rights organizations and defenders in Asia. The contribution of civil society is critical in consultations, which should be inclusive, including for the drafting of recommandations and resolutions.
H.E. Beatriz LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia : we need to build a space at the Human Rights Council to exchange national experience and good practice, recognise achievement, discuss obstacles, and learn lessons. There is no universal recipe. We have to spread the world of what is happening in Geneva. The OHCHR has been a key contributor to the Peace Agreement in Colombia.
H.E. Kok Jwee FOO, Permanent Representative of Singapore : small States, like Singapore and Switzerland, can have ideas, too… We need to keep relevance… We need to understand the evolution of the world: more side-events are needed! Focus on teams, partnerships, "communities of practice" at the local, regional and international level : groups of people who share common concerns. The « Istanbul Process » is one example on religious tolerance : www.universal-rights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/URG-DIHR-Report-on-the-5th-Meeting-of-the-Istanbul-Process-Jeddah-2015.pdf:
Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul Process
In September 2010, the then Secretary-General of the OIC, Professor Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu addressed the 15th session of the Human Rights Council (The Council/HRC) and presented an eight-point vision for a new, consensual approach to combatting religious intolerance:
‘I take this opportunity to call upon all states to consider taking specific measures aimed at fostering a domestic environment of religious tolerance, respect and peace, including but not limited to:
• encouraging the creation of collaborative networks to build mutual understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action...;
• creating an appropriate mechanism within the government to, inter alia, identify and address potential areas of tension between members of different religious communities...;
• encouraging training of government officials on effective outreach strategies;
• encouraging efforts of community leaders to discuss within their communities causes of discrimination and evolving strategies to counter them;
•speakingoutagainstintolerance,includingadvocacyofreligioushatredthatconstitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;
• adopting measures to criminalise incitement to imminent violence based on religion;
• underscoring the need to combat denigration or negative religious stereotyping and incitement to religious hatred...;
• recognising that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence.’
Building on this speech, during the Council’s 16th session (March 2011), Pakistan, Turkey, the UK and the US took steps secure support for a new resolution on ‘combatting
intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief"
We could use IT to build platforms to share « communities of practice » including practitioners on the ground.
Durant la discussion, ai posé la question de savoir comment mieux protéger les minorités ethniques et religieuses au Proche-Orient, en particulier en Irak et en Syrie, et quels pourraient être les rôles respectifs du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme à Genève et du Conseil de sécurité à New York…
According to the Permanent Representative of Singapore the answer could be in sharing communities of practice, with various shareholders.
Après la réunion, suis allé le voir. Il a ajouté qu’il ne pouvait pas en dire plus publiquement. D’autres personnes, dont un représentant du Conseil oecuménique des Eglises, sont venus souligner en privé la pertinence et difficulté de la question.
Michel Veuthey
Annexes à voir sur le site www.universal-rights.org :
Rapports de GLION I (2014), de GLION II (2015) et de GLION III (2016)

Les commentaires sont fermés.