Tag: United Nations Human Rights Council

After NHRC Loses Its UN Links, India Might Lose Vote at Human Rights Body

India has been repeatedly told of concerns about the lack of diversity in the NHRC, and asked to have a “pluralistic balance in its composition and staff” by ensuring the representation of a diverse Indian society including, but not limited to religious or ethnic minorities.

On May 13 this year, a headline was published which read: “UN-linked body defers NHRC-India accreditation for second year in a row”. Beneath this was the line: “The decision could now affect India’s ability to vote at the Human Rights Council and some UNGA bodies”.

NHRC stands for the National Human Rights Commission and this column is about why its accreditation was deferred. Last year, on March 9, 2023, a group of non-governmental organisations (including mine) wrote to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), the UN-linked body. We told it to review India’s accreditation status because the NHRC’s lack of independence, pluralism, diversity, and accountability were contrary to United Nations principles on national institutions (called “The Paris Principles”). Taking cognisance of our letter and other civil society submissions, the global body deferred the NHRC’s re-accreditation by 12 months after considering its failure to effectively discharge its mandates to respond to the escalating human rights violations in India. The NHRC was also told to improve its processes and functions, but a year later this had not happened. This is what led to the second deferral of accreditation.

So, what were the things that were contrary to the “Paris Principles”? First was a lack of independence. Both in the appointing of the NHRC’s functionaries and its functioning. The chairperson and other members of the NHRC are appointed by the President, based on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the prime minister, the speaker of the Lok Sabha, the minister of home affairs, the leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha. However, since 2019, the post of the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha has been vacant, leaving only a single Opposition voice in the selection committee.

After his retirement from the Supreme Court, Justice Arun Mishra was made the NHRC chair on May 31, 2021, despite strong disagreement by the lone Opposition voice in the selection committee. The second problem was that the NHRC has police officers investigating human rights violations by the State, including by the police. This is a conflict of interest, not independence from government interference. Despite this being pointed out in the 2023 review, the Narendra Modi government did not begin a legislative process to correct it or to invite a consultation to begin it.

In November 2023, seven former IPS officers were appointed by the NHRC as special monitors. One of them, accused of corruption in 2018 while working as special director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s federal investigation agency, was given the responsibility to oversee the thematic areas of terrorism, counter-insurgency, communal riots and violence. A former director of the Intelligence Bureau was made a member of the commission.

India has been repeatedly told of concerns about the lack of diversity in the NHRC, and asked to have a “pluralistic balance in its composition and staff” by ensuring the representation of a diverse Indian society including, but not limited to religious or ethnic minorities. This of course was not done in this country, where the prime minister rants against the minorities constantly, including in his election speeches.

Yet another issue was the NHRC’s lack of effective engagement with civil society and human rights defenders in India. Towards this end, the NHRC was asked to interpret its mandate in a “broad and purposive manner to promote a progressive definition of human rights”, and told to address all human rights violations and ensure consistent follow-up with the state authorities. This may surprise those who have bought this government’s framing of the matter, where all those who oppose its violence are “anti-nationals”. However, that is not how the rest of the world views it, and proper democracies must engage with civil society.

Also read: The National Human Rights Commission is a Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing

In India, human rights defenders languish in detention for years without trial under various draconian laws, including UAPA, with not a squeal from the NHRC. This includes those detained in connection with the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case for more than five years; Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez, who has been in detention since November 2021; and Umar Khalid. The NHRC has not taken any concrete steps to respond to the situation of the HRDs or to intervene in a timely manner despite various UN special rapporteurs calling on the Indian authorities to release these individuals. The NHRC has been next to useless on the issue of Manipur, Jammu and Kashmir, communal violence in Haryana and Uttarakhand and other ones that made the headlines. It has not covered itself in glory and the predicament it and the government now find itself in is of their own making. India holds an “A” rating currently and the deferral of reaccreditation means its “A” rating is under threat. That further means that the NHRC stands to lose its voting position in the United Nations Human Rights Council and other bodies. This can only be corrected by doing the right thing, which nobody is stopping the government from doing.

All of us, including all the signatories to that letter, want to see India accredited at the highest level on the global body. However, such an accreditation should be an honest one, reflective of a strong and independent human rights body in India committed in particular to responding to the rights violations by the State. It should not be an automatic right given to the self-appointed “mother of democracy”.

Aakar Patel is an author and columnist.

India Abstains from UNHRC Vote That Extended Term of Special Rapporteur on Russia

The United Nations Human Rights Council resolution extended by a year the mandate of the independent expert documenting the human rights situation in Russia. 

New Delhi: India on Thursday, October 12, abstained from voting on a resolution moved in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that extended by a year the mandate of the independent expert documenting the human rights situation in Russia.

India has abstained from all resolutions moved against Russia in the UN since the Ukraine war in February 2022.

The resolution was adopted on Thursday at the UNHRC’s 54th regular session, with 18 votes in favour and seven against. Like earlier, the number of abstentions this time around were also more than the number of votes in favour of the resolution.

The resolution extended the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, urging Russia to comply with all the state’s obligations under international human rights law. The UNHRC previously appointed a Commission of Inquiry to look into rights abuses related to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Bolivia, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Vietnam voted against the resolution. Along with India, the United Arab Emirates, South Africa, Mexico, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Morocco abstained from the voting.

India had also abstained from last year’s resolution, as it has with regard to all resolutions criticising Russia for the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. New Delhi has refrained from directly blaming Russia but called for a peaceful resolution and to stop targeting civilians.

Contrary to the stance taken by the West, India has increased the purchase of Russian crude oil, arguing that it is necessary to ameliorate the economic consequence of the Ukraine war.

The latest resolution urged Russia to ensure fundamental freedoms, including those of thought, opinion and expression, and peaceful assembly, “in particular by removing restrictions on diversity in ideas, criticism and dissent as well as associated rights to liberty and security of person, fair trial, and freedom from torture”.

The vote came after Russia’s bid to rejoin the Council was rejected by the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, October 10. Russia had been expelled from the UNHRC in April 2022.

India Abstains as UNHRC Extends Investigation Into Ukraine War by One Year

This is the fourth time that the UN Human Rights Council has voted on a matter related to Ukraine since the invasion by Russian troops. India has abstained from voting in all of them, just as it has on other resolutions on the Ukraine war at other UN bodies.

New Delhi: India on Tuesday, April 4, abstained in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on a resolution that extended the mandate of the investigation into alleged war crimes by Russia during the ongoing Ukrainian war.

This is the fourth time that the UNHRC has voted on a matter related to Ukraine since the invasion by Russian troops. However, it is the third resolution to be adopted by the Council condemning Moscow. India has abstained from voting in all of them, just as it has on other resolutions on the Ukraine war at other UN bodies.

Sponsored by Ukraine and the West, the resolution was passed with 28 out of the 47 council members voting in favour. Only two countries, China and Eritrea, voted against it, while 17 others abstained.

After the start of the war, the UNHRC voted in February 2022 to hold an urgent debate on the human rights situation in Ukraine. India had been among the 13 countries that abstained, while 29 countries voted in favour.

Thereafter, India abstained from voting in the March 2022 resolution that established a commission of inquiry with 32 ‘yes’ votes. Then, at the UNHRC’s special session in May 2022, a resolution was passed that updated the mandate for the investigation. India took the same position once again. 

Russia was expelled from the Geneva-based UNHRC by a majority of the UN General Assembly in April last year.

India’s “explanation of vote” before the voting of the resolution on Tuesday was on similar lines as earlier, with no mention or direct criticism of Russia.

“The conflict has resulted in loss of lives and countless miseries for its people, particularly for women, children and elderly, with millions becoming homeless and forced to take shelter in neighbouring countries. We reiterate our grave concerns about the reports of attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure,” said counsellor, Permanent Mission of India to the UN in Geneva, Pawankumar Badhe.

He also stated that India called for the “respect for and protection of human rights of people in Ukraine and reiterate our abiding commitment to global promotion and protection of human rights”.

Reiterating Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement that this is not an era for war, India called for an urgent return to dialogue and diplomacy.

“International principles and jurisprudence vest responsibility on parties to the conflict to ensure that civilians and civilian infrastructure are not targeted in situations of armed conflicts. The global order that we all subscribe to, is based on International Law, the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states. These principles must be upheld without any exception,” he said.

India noted the global impact of the Ukraine conflict, especially the economic adversity faced by developing countries.

India’s Human Rights Records Will Be Scrutinised at UN. What Does It Mean?

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group is expected to ask questions ranging from the treatment of women and minorities to deaths in police custody. 

New Delhi: India’s record in protecting the civil, political and economic rights of its citizens will be scrutinised at the United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday, when it will have to answer a barrage of questions ranging from treatment of women and minorities and deaths in police custody.

Here is a quick primer on what this process – which last took place five years ago – entails.

Why is India’s human rights record under the microscope?

On November 10, India will take its turn to be in the spotlight as its human rights record is examined at the 41st session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group, comprising 47 members of the UNHRC. This will be the fourth time India will be evaluated under the UPR process. The earlier reviews took place in 2008, 2012 and 2017. It is a process that all 193 member states of the United Nations undergo every four and half years. India also takes part in the scrutiny of other countries.

What is the UPR process?

The UN General Assembly established the peer-review mechanism of the UPR in 2006, which was described as one of the most innovative components for the accountability of the newly-established (and wholly elected) Human Rights Council.

Ahead of the review meeting, the Indian foreign ministry on Wednesday commended the UPR process as a “successful human rights mechanism” due to the “importance it places on dialogue and cooperation amongst member states”.

A UPR working group consisting of 47 members of the Council conducts the reviews. Each review is coordinated by a group of three countries known as the Troika. For India, the Troika is Nepal, Sudan and the Netherlands. In 2017, India’s Troika – selected by a drawing of lots – was Latvia, South Africa and the Philippines.

Every session, around 14 countries are put under the scanner.

The UPR working group will be holding an interactive meeting on India on November 10, where the Indian delegation can answer questions posed by any member state.

The review is based on three types of documentation submitted ahead of the meeting of the UPR working group. The first is the National Report, a compilation of the country under review’s assessment of its human rights record. India submitted its National Report on August 17. 

The second report is based on information provided by specialised UN bodies, human rights treaty entities and the UN – and compiled by the Office of the UN Human Rights Commissioner.

Civil society groups, national human rights institutions and regional organisations are also allowed to submit their separate reports, summarised in a Stakeholders’ report.

What will happen at the review meeting on November 10?

The head of the Indian delegation, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, will make an opening statement, followed by a question and answer session. As per the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the other members of the delegations are MEA secretary (west) Sanjay Verma, Permanent Representative of India Indra Mani Pandey, additional solicitor general of India K.M. Nataraj and senior officials from the MEA and other ministries like home, women and child development, social justice and empowerment, minority affairs, rural development and NITI Aayog. The vice chancellor of the National Law University, Delhi, who heads the institution that collaborated in drawing up the National Report, will also be part of the team.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Last time, the Indian delegation was led by the then attorney general Mukul Rohtagi. 

During the interactive discussion of the UPR working group, UN member states can ask questions and make recommendations to India. The ‘Troika’, acting as moderators, can direct the questions to the country under review. Several countries have already submitted written questions earlier. The duration of the meeting is around three hours and 30 minutes. 

The MEA noted that 131 countries have registered to participate in the meeting on Thursday. In 2017, 103 countries gave their views on India’s human rights record.

Also Read: India Performed Worse Than Average in Upholding 13 Basic Human Rights, Report Says

What kind of questions could be asked by countries?

The questions have traditionally ranged from restrictions on civil society, especially on foreign funding, to the perceived impunity for excessive force by security personnel. Several western countries have recommended the repeal or review of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA).

In the last review in 2017, a question was raised about African nationals’ treatment after attacks on African students in Greater Noida in February of that year.

Nearly every state speaking at the review meeting raised women’s rights five years ago, with many countries calling for the criminalisation of marital rape. This is likely to feature prominently again during Thursday’s interactive discussion, along with other topics like freedom of media, child rights and treatment of minorities.

What happens after the meeting?

After the review meeting, the Troika prepares an ‘outcome report’ presented at the next plenary session of the UN Human Rights Council. This report will summarise the discussion, including the comments, questions and recommendations made by member states. It will also include the responses of the country under review, i.e. India, to the recommendations.

There are only two choices of response for any country under review – “accepted” and “noted”. Since there is no explicit concept of rejection in this mechanism, the ‘noted’ response is taken in its stead since the country does not agree with the recommendation.

During the third cycle, India received 250 recommendations, out of which 152 were accepted, while the rest, 98, were “noted”. In the first UPR cycle in 2008, India received just 18 recommendations, of which only five were supported. Five years later, 169 recommendations were received – 102 were noted, while 67 were accepted.

Is there any monitoring mechanism for the recommendations?

Since a member state is primarily responsible for implementing the recommendations, India has to give information on the steps taken to implement the accepted suggestions in previous cycles in its latest National Report.

There is also a provision for voluntary submission of a mid-term report by a country. 

As per the latest UN data, while 85 countries have submitted mid-term reports during various cycles, India is not among them.

Does UPR scrutiny improve human rights domestically? What has its impact been in India?

The main concern about the UPR process revolves around the centrality of states. For critics, states have too much leeway in assuming and fulfilling their human rights obligations. 

According to the 2014 note of the International Council of Jurists (ICJ), these recommendations are not legally binding and depend on states to accept them. “Recommendations that are accepted by the SUR (State under Review) are ‘easy’ recommendations, while more ‘tough’ recommendations are rejected,” said the ICJ, listing out the concerns made by critics. States do not have to give any justification for not accepting a recommendation.

Further, many recommendations are vaguely worded, which often helps the states under review.

Since the National Report only calls for states to give information about implementing their accepted recommendation in previous cycles, it allows them to escape any answerability on more severe charges of human rights violations.

Representative image. The UN Human Rights Council. Photo: United Nations Photo/Flickr CC BY NC ND 2.0

A 2018 publication of the National Law University, Delhi, noted that “many of the limitations of the UPR process are visible in India’s engagement with the mechanism”. 

“The Indian government routinely ignores recommendations that do not align with state ideology. It accepts very few recommendations relating to civil and political rights, or on any sensitive or controversial issue,” said the report “India’s Third Universal Periodic Review 2017”.

It noted that even when recommendations are accepted in Geneva, they are not translated into policy goals domestically.

“The disconnect between recommendations accepted in Geneva and domestic policy and legislative priorities is most starkly evident with respect to torture. India agreed, both in 2008 and in 2012, to ratify the Convention Against Torture. However, despite repeated assurances, India has yet to implement this recommendation,” the report said.

India’s lack of ratification of the Convention also figured in the 2017 review process. 

Even in the latest National Report submitted in August, India reiterated its commitment to ratify the Convention but repeated that the delay is due to the process of taking the opinion of all state governments as the matter falls under the concurrent list.

Watch | Explained: India’s Uncharacteristic Remarks Criticising Sri Lanka at the UN

Devirupa Mitra talks about where this criticism may be coming from and why India is engaged in a balancing act in the region.

On September 12, India used unusually strong language to chastise the Sri Lankan government for a “lack of measurable progress” in finding a political solution to the “ethnic issue” involving Sri Lankan Tamils at a debate in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

India’s statement was made during the discussion on the report released earlier by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), on the first day of Geneva-based UNHRC’s 51st session.

Devirupa Mitra, diplomatic editor at The Wire, talks about where this criticism may be coming from and why India is engaged in a balancing act in the region.

As UN Votes to Remove Russia from UNHRC, India Abstains

India said it abstained from the resolution “for reasons of both substance and process”.

New Delhi: India abstained as the United Nations General Assembly voted to expel Russia from the UN human rights body over alleged human rights violations by Russian security forces in Ukraine.

For the first time, one of the permanent members has lost its membership rights in a UN body.

This is only the second time the UNGA has suspended a country from the 47-member UN Human Rights Council after its formation in 2006. Eleven years ago, Libya was thrown out through a resolution adopted by UNGA through consensus.

Less than half the members of the UNGA voted in favour of the resolution, but it was enough to pass the resolution. As per the rules, a resolution must find support from two-thirds of those “present and voting”, with abstentions not counted as votes.

Describing the vote as a “historic and important day”, US envoy to UN Linda Thomas-Garfield said it “sent a clear message that Russia will be held accountable”.

The Russian permanent mission to the UN tweeted that the adoption of the resolution was an “illegal and politically motivated step” to punish a country that pursues an independent foreign policy. It also announced that Russia was voluntarily “terminating” its membership in UNHRC with immediate effect.

Russia was in its second year of a three-year term on the Geneva-based council, which cannot make legally binding decisions. However, its decisions send important political messages, and can authorise investigations.

Also read: Explainer: What to Expect As UN Votes on West’s Move to Remove Russia from UNHRC

Ahead of the vote, Russia had called upon all the countries to vote against the resolution. Moscow had previously been comfortable with abstentions on earlier resolutions, but had warned select countries this time that abstaining would be taken as an “unfriendly” act, as per media reports.

The resolution was passed with 93 votes in favour, 24 against and 58 abstentions.

India’s permanent representative to the UN, T.S. Tirumurti, stated that India had abstained on the resolution “for reasons of both substance and process”.

T.S. Tirumurti. Photo: https://pminewyork.gov.in

He reiterated India’s condemnation of the civilian killing in Bucha and supported the call for an independent investigation.

Implying that the move to push out Russia from UNHRC did not follow due procedure, Tirumurti said, “We firmly believe that all decisions should be taken fully respecting due process, as all our democratic polity and structures enjoin us to do. This applies to international organisations as well, particularly the United Nations.”

China, which had abstained in the last two UNGA resolutions, cast a negative vote.

“Such a hasty move at the General Assembly, which forces countries to choose sides, will aggravate the division among member states, intensify the confrontation between the parties concerned – it is like adding fuel to the fire,” China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Jun said before the vote.

At the same time, several countries which had voted for the previous resolutions condemning Russia for aggression in Ukraine, like Brazil and Egypt, abstained. Even Mexico, co-author of the last UNGA resolution on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine, abstained this time.

South Africa, which had floated an alternate Russia-backed draft resolution on Ukraine on March 24 much to the chagrin of the West, also abstained.

Most of them argued that the move to expel Russia would not contribute to reaching a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine war and would further escalate the polarisation in the international community.

From South Asia, seven countries abstained, while Afghanistan was absent during the voting process.

From Africa, Latin America and Asia, the proportion of ‘yes’ votes had dropped substantially compared to the previous resolution last month. Predictably, all Western European countries voted for the resolution.

According to UN observers, 39 countries who had voted ‘yes’ on March 24 changed their ballot to abstention on Thursday. A smaller number of 18 nations who had abstained last time joined the ‘no’ benches. Only one country, Gabon, a UNSC non-permanent member, had voted for the resolution last month, but abstained on Thursday.

Speaking before the vote, Ukraine’s UN Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya said a yes vote would “save the Human Rights Council and many lives around the world and in Ukraine,” but a no vote was “pulling a trigger, and means a red dot on the screen – red as the blood of the innocent lives lost”.

Russia’s deputy UN Ambassador Gennady Kuzmin said now was not the time for “theatrical performances” and accused Western countries and allies of trying to “destroy existing human rights architecture”.

Since the February 24 invasion of Ukraine, 10 resolutions have been adopted by the UN General Assembly, Security Council and UNHRC, strongly deploring Russia’s actions. India has abstained on all of them.

The two previous General Assembly resolutions denouncing Russia were adopted with 141 and 140 votes in favour.

Over a decade ago, when the UNHRC recommended the suspension of Libya to the General Assembly, there had been no vote since the resolution was adopted by consensus. But India did make a statement.

India stated that it had noted the concerns of the UN high commissioner for human rights on violations in Libya, but asserted that the Council should not take a politicised decision. “The credibility and legitimacy of the Council will be enhanced when the council is seen to be dealing with similar situations in a similar manner, and not sacrificing concern for human rights at the altar of political expediency and strategic opportunism,” said India at UNHRC’s special session on February 25, 2011.

(With inputs from Reuters)

India Supports Resolution as UNHRC Approves a Monitoring Mandate for Afghanistan

India voted in favour of the latest EU-sponsored resolution, although it usually abstains or votes against country-specific resolutions. China, Russia and Pakistan have all opposed it.

New Delhi: In its second attempt in two months, the United Nations Human Rights Council approved a monitoring mandate for Afghanistan through a resolution which was voted in favour of by India and the European Union states but opposed by China, Pakistan and Russia.

The resolution (A/HRC/48/L.24/Rev.1) passed on Thursday, October 8, with 28 votes in favour, 14 abstentions and five negative votes, has been approved only a month after the Council had unanimously adopted an Organisation of Islamic Cooperation-sponsored resolution at the special session on Afghanistan.

The previous resolution, drafted and steered by Pakistan, had been severely criticised by several countries, UNHRC officials and human rights activists for being deliberately diluted and not having any oversight mechanism. The special session had taken less than two weeks to convene after the Taliban’s complete victory in Afghanistan, following the withdrawal of foreign troops and the sudden departure of President Ashraf Ghani.

India voted in favour of the latest EU-sponsored resolution on Afghanistan, although it usually abstains or votes against country-specific resolutions.

Earlier in the day, India had voted against the resolution to extend the war crimes investigation by UNHRC in Yemen. It was the first time that a UNHRC resolution had been defeated in the 15-year-old history of the UN body.

There were no explanations given for India’s vote on the resolutions on Yemen and Afghanistan. But generally, India’s stance has been not to support resolutions that are not backed by the country concerned.

The resolution on Afghanistan had been co-sponsored by European Union and the recognised Afghan representative for the UN in Geneva. The Afghanistan permanent mission continues to be manned by diplomats appointed by the previous Ashraf Ghani government, as UN member states have decided to defer any decision to recognise the Taliban regime.

Under the latest resolution, Council has appointed a Special Rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Afghanistan and present a written report to the UNHRC and UN General Assembly in the latter half of 2022.

Further, the resolution “encourages” the UN human rights chief Michele Bachelet to update the Council “as deemed necessary, and in any case” before the end of 2021. It was in addition to the oral update to be presented in the Council’s fiftieth session next year.

The five negative votes on the resolution were cast by China, Russia, Pakistan, Venezuela and Eritrea.

Stating that the draft resolution had “serious defects”, China had introduced five amendments, all of which were rejected by a vote. India had also voted against the Chinese amendments. The Chinese diplomat had then called for a vote on the draft resolution.

China, Russia and Pakistan took the floor to express their disappointment that the adoption of the resolution which they said would be unhelpful towards normalising the situation in Afghanistan.

The three countries together have been pushing for greater engagement with the Taliban regime in the face of the West’s reluctance to accord recognition to the new dispensation.

The Human Rights Council is yet another multilateral platform to demonstrate the international community’s deep divide over the steps and timing to recognise or integrate the Taliban regime into the global system.

Pakistan termed the resolution as “ill-timed, ill-advised and potentially counter-productive”. Russia and other partners also criticised that the Special Rapporteur had a “forward-looking mandate” and did not cover atrocities committed by foreign troops. They questioned the timing of the resolution when the earlier one was approved just a month ago and was yet to be implemented.

Out of the 14 abstentions, 11 were by members of OIC, which had sponsored the resolution adopted during the special session in August. None of the OIC members of the Council, except Pakistan, voted against the resolution.

Afghanistan’s representative had also sponsored the OIC-led resolution but had expressed disappointment that it did not set up any monitoring mechanism.

Welcoming the EU-drafted resolution, Afghan representative Nasir Ahmad Andisha said that “initial optimism” of the Taliban regime’s responsiveness to international concerns had waned after the formation of the caretaker government. He highlighted the human rights violations reported from inside Afghanistan and stated that these were the “actions” of the Taliban, who had told their international interlocutors that they would respect the rights of all Afghans.

Welcoming the appointment of a special rapporteur, international human rights watchdog Amnesty International said that while the resolution fell short of addressing the gravity of the ground situation, it was an important first step towards an oversight mechanism. 

“With the speed at which the situation on the ground is developing, it’s imperative that a mandate holder is appointed as urgently as possible and provided, in a timely manner, with all necessary resources to conduct their work,” said Amnesty International secretary-general, Agnès Callamard.

Palestine Flays India’s Abstention from Crucial UNHRC Vote

Palestinian foreign minister Riad Maliki said India’s no-show stifled the important work of advancing human rights for the Palestinian people.

New Delhi: Palestine has expressed concern that India’s abstention on a resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to set up a permanent commission to probe abuses in Israel, including Israeli-occupied Gaza and West Bank, “stifles” international efforts to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people.

On May 27, the UNHRC passed a resolution in a one-day special session which for the first time set up a permanent commission of inquiry without a time limit. The resolution, co-sponsored by Palestine, was approved by 24 votes in favour, nine against and 14 abstentions.

Three days later, Palestinian foreign minister Riad Maliki wrote to his Indian counterpart that he wishes to “express our concern [at] the position taken by the Republic of India in the Human Rights Council, 30th Special session on 27 May 2021”.

In his letter, dated May 30, Maliki said that the resolution was “not an aberration” in the UNHRC but resulted from extensive multilateral consultations.

He noted the resolution was a “consolidation” of years of investigation into “Israel’s grave violations” by various institutions, which have not ensued in any accountability.

“Therefore, your abstention stifles the important work of the Human Rights Council [in] advancing human rights for all peoples, including those of the Palestinian people,” Maliki told Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar.

He wrote that the Palestinian people had been “excluded front the applicability of the universal and the indispensable principle of accountability, a prerequisite to justice and peace”.

The UNHRC resolution also mandates the Commission of Inquiry to look into “all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity”.

Maliki asserted that the “root causes”, which he identified as “dispossession, displacement, colonization, oppression of the Palestinian people and the denial and violation of their every human right by Israel”, should be given top priority.

“Otherwise, the situation will not only remain volatile, but will continue deteriorating with far-reaching and grave repercussions,” he added.

The Palestinian foreign minister concluded by saying that his government stands ready to “engage positively and seriously” to realise peace in the region.

At the UNHRC session, India delivered a statement, but it did not give any reason for its abstention on the resolution.

Welcoming the ceasefire, India’s permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, Indra Mani Pandey, reiterated that none of the parties should attempt to “unilaterally change the existing status-quo, including in East Jerusalem and its neighbourhoods”.

“We remain concerned about the continuing violence in Jerusalem, especially at Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount and other Palestinian territories, and about the possible eviction process in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, an area which is part of an arrangement facilitated by the UN,” said Pandey.

He criticised the violence, but with specific condemnation reserved for Hamas’s rocket strikes into Israel. “The indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza targeting the civilian population in Israel, which we have condemned, and the retaliatory airstrikes into Gaza in the last two weeks have caused immense suffering- and resulted in deaths, including an Indian national—a caregiver in the Israeli city of Ashkelon,” Pandey said.

The Indian diplomat stated that recent developments had again underscored the “need for immediate resumption of dialogue between Israel and Palestine, aimed at realising the establishment of two States living side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders”.

India Abstains as UNHRC Approves Probe Into Israeli Human Rights Abuses in Palestine

The resolution, passed by 24 votes in favour and nine votes against, marks an exceptional level of examination into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would be the first time that a Commission of Inquiry is not time-bound.

New Delhi: India on Thursday abstained on the resolution that calls on the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to set up a permanent commission to probe human rights violations in Gaza, West Bank and Palestine.

The resolution, passed by 24 votes in favour and nine votes against, marks an exceptional level of examination into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would be the first time that a Commission of Inquiry has received a “continuing mandate”, that is, it is not time-bound.

India abstained along with 13 others, including France, Japan, Nepal, Brazil and South Korea. The nine nay-sayers included the UK, Germany, Bulgaria and Czech Republic.

The resolution, moved by Pakistan and Palestine, called on the president of the UN Human rights council to set up an “independent, international commission of inquiry” into the events which led to the current Gaza crisis.

The COI was also mandated to look at “all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity”.

The resolution also urged all third parties to refrain from transferring arms to either of the two parties if there is a “clear risk” that such weapons could be used in commission or facilitation of serious violations of international law.

The one-day special session of the Geneva-based UNHRC was convened on request of the member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Palestine.

Delegates, wearing masks, listen to speeches during the 45th session of the Human Rights Council, at the European UN headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland September 14, 2020. Photo: Martial Trezzini/Pool via Reuters/File

The latest round of Gaza violence began with tension escalating over Israeli forces cutting off the loudspeakers used to broadcast prayers from the Al-Aqsa mosque on April 13. This was followed by Israel’s decision to ban gatherings at the plaza near Damascus Gate.

With an imminent Israel Supreme court decision, there was also frequent protests about a looming eviction of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. Israel police were rushed into the Al-Aqsa compound and used heavy-handed tactics to subdue the protesting Palestinians over several days.

On May 10, Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas fired rockets into Israel, most of which were intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-missile system. Israel then retaliated with airstrikes. The devastating exchange of firepower went on for 11 days before the Egyptian brokered ceasefire came into existence on May 21.

Over 250 people were killed, out of which 230 were Palestinians. The toll in Gaza included 65 children. In Israel, twelve people were killed, including a five-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl. An Indian national, who worked as a caregiver in Ashkelon, also died in the missile strikes targetting Israel.

India did not give an explanation of its vote at the virtual session. However, other members states which voted against or abstained on the resolution, like the UK and France, cited the expansive nature of the mandate given to the Commission of Inquiry.

Until now, the UN body’s Commissions of Inquiry set up to probe human rights violations in particular hotspots like Syria or Sri Lanka have a validity of one year, renewed periodically.

India’s statement, read out by Permanent Representative Indra Mani Pandey, was nearly identical to the ones delivered in the UN Security Council and General Assembly earlier this month.

Welcoming the ceasefire, India reiterated that none of the parties should attempt the “unilaterally change the existing status-quo, including in East Jerusalem and its neighbourhoods”.

“We remain concerned about the continuing violence in Jerusalem, especially at Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount and other Palestinian territories, and about the possible eviction process in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, an area which is part of an arrangement facilitated by the UN,” said Pandey.

He also criticised the violence, with specific condemnation of Hamas rocket strikes. “The indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza targeting the civilian population in Israel, which we have condemned, and the retaliatory airstrikes into Gaza in the last two weeks have caused immense suffering- and resulted in deaths, including an Indian national—a caregiver in the Israeli city of Ashkelon,” Pandey said.

African Nations Call for Racism Debate at UN Human Rights Council

A letter signed by all 54 African nations requested the UN Human Rights Council to urgently debate racism and police violence as protests over George Floyd’s death grow around the world.

African countries on Friday called on the United Nation Human Rights Council to urgently debate racism and police impunity, amid growing protests over George Floyd’s death in the United States and other parts of the world.

Burkina Faso’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva wrote the letter on behalf of the 54 African countries, asking the UN’s top human rights body for an “urgent debate” on “racially inspired human rights violations, police brutality against people of African descent and the violence against the peaceful protests that call for these injustices to stop.”

The letter requests for the debate to be held next week when the council’s 43rd session resumes, after being stalled by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The appeal comes after Floyd’s family, relatives of other victims of police brutality, and nearly 600 NGOs urged the council to urgently address the issue of systemic racism and police violence.

For such a request to be considered by the council, it needs to be backed by at least one state.

With the call now coming from a large group of countries, “that increases the chances” it will take place, a council spokesperson told AFP.

George Floyd, a 46-year-old unarmed black man, died in police custody in the US city of Minneapolis on May 25 after a white officer kneeled Floyd’s neck for nearly 9 minutes.

The officer has since been charged with murder.

“Sadly, the fates of many other victims attracted no attention, as they were not captured on social media for all to see,” Ambassador Dieudonne Desire Sougouri wrote in the letter to the council.

Floyd’s death, which was caught on video, has sparked unrest in the US and around the world.

“The protests the world is witnessing are a rejection of the fundamental racial inequality and discrimination that characterise life in the United States for black people, and other people of colour,” the letter said.

Council President Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger is expected to announce a proposed day for the debate on Monday. Unless there are any objections, the debate is likely to go ahead.

This story first appeared on DW. Read the original here.