U.N. Human Rights Council’s Final Consideration of Cuba’s Universal Periodic Review 

On September 21, 2018, the U.N. Human Rights Council held a meeting in its 39th regular session. An important item on the agenda was the final review of the latest Universal Periodic Reviews of the human rights records of three more states, including Cuba.[1]

Just before this session, the Council provided an Addendum to Cuba’s national report that listed its responses to the 339 recommendations that had been made by other U.N. Members and Stakeholders. Of these 339 recommendations,  Cuba had “supported” (accepted or noted) 309, and rejected 30 in the following categories[2]

Recommendations Rejections
Improve freedoms of assembly & association  13.0
End arbitrary detentions    4.0
Release prisoners of conscience    3.0
Recognize rights of political activists    2.0
Respect independent media    2.0
Allow independent monitoring of detention    1.5
Establish independent judiciary    1.5
Allow complaints to treaty bodies    1.0
Allow multiparty elections (U.S.)    1.0
End coercive labor    0.5
Increase laws against human trafficking    0.5
TOTAL 30.0

Cuba’s Ambassador, Pedro Pedrosa, made  introductory and concluding statements that included the following comments:

  • Cuba had rejected 30 of the recommendations because they were “politically skewed” and some reflected the “hegemonic ambitions of some [the U.S.] to undermine Cuban systems.” He also condemned the U.S. embargo (blockade) as a “massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights.”
  • For Cuba, ratification of an international treaty is a “very serious process” and is never made under pressure, again referring to the “hostile policies of the U.S. against the Cuban people.”
  • Cuba is against the death penalty and has not had an execution since 1923. However, it needs to keep the death penalty because of terrorism.
  • Cuba has a “system of independent courts to insure “ respect for human rights.
  • In 2017 Cuba welcomed two international human rights monitors (human trafficking and international solidarity).
  • Cuba calls for democracy and international governance of the Internet and the end of the digital divide and monopolies of these technologies.
  • Cuba is proud of the accomplishments of its Revolution and its contributions to the broadening of human rights.
  • Reforms in Cuba can only happen with true international and impartial cooperation.
  • The UPR process should not be a forum for attacks or proposals by foreign powers [U.S.].
  • Cuba rejects “rash” comments at this session by the World Evangelical Alliance and the Christianity Global Solidarity because they ignore the Cuban reality of religious freedom and right to change religion. Nevertheless, he invited these organizations to visit Cuba.
  • He also criticized the comments from Amnesty International and U.N. Watch.

=========================================

[1]  U.N. Hum. Rts. Council,  Documentation (39th Regular Session). Previous posts about the current (and other) Cuba UPRs are listed in the “Cuban Human Rights” section of  List of Posts to dwkcommentaries.com—Topical: CUBA.

[2]  U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Cuba: Addendum (Sept. 18, 2018) (views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review).

 

 

U.N. Human Rights Council’s Final Consideration of Cameroon’s Universal Periodic Review

On September 20, 2018, the U.N. Human Rights Council held its 39th regular session. An important item on the session’s agenda was the final review of the latest Universal Periodic Reviews of the human rights records of 11 states, including Cameroon.[1]

Just before this session the Council provided an Addendum to Cameroon’s national report that listed its responses to the 196 recommendations that had been made by other U.N. Members and Stakeholders. At the end of this session, the Council President said that of the 196 recommendations, Cameroon had “supported” 134, “noted” 59 and rejected 3.[2]

A close examination of the record, however, reveals the following rejections:

Recommendation Rejections
Abolish death penalty  14.5
Legalize honmosexuality, etc.  12.0
Diability rights    2.5
ICC membeship    1.5
Women;’s rights    1.0
Children’s rights    1.0
Birth registration    1.0
Abortion    1.0
Human rights defenders    1.0
No military courts for civilians    1.0
Ratify all H.R. treaties    1.0
Migrants rights    0.5
Stateless rights    0.5
No disappearances    0.5
Torture treaty opt. protocol   0.5
Independent investiagtions   0.5
TOTAL 40.0

Thus, the total of acceptances and noteds is 196-40 = 156, not 193.

Cameroon’s Foreign Minister, Lejeune Mbella Mbella, made an introductory statement that included the following comments on the current internal conflict:

  • The crisis in the Northwest and Southwest provinces began in 2016 with protests by advocates for English common law and Anglophone teachers.
  • Then an insurrection arose with atrocities in an effort to partition the country. These acts of revolt included kidnappings; killing of authorities, security forces, teachers and pupils; arson attacks; and recruitment of child soldiers.
  • The country’s security forces responded to restore order, security and peace and to defend the unitary state. These forces have been trained to observe ethics and professionalism despite provocations. There also are investigations of alleges abuses by these forces.
  • The government has adopted an emergency assistance plan for these two provinces with a platform for exchange of intelligence. It has a budgetary goal of 12.7 billion CFA.
  • Journalists are free to operate, but need to be protected.
  • Children’s right to education has been adversely affected by the violence. Cameroon supports the Declaration on Security in Schools proposed by Norway and Sweden.
  • Detainees are jailed (pursuant to criminal procedure) or put on house arrest. They are free to communicate with attorneys and families.
  • Cameroon is now proceeding to its national presidential election with nine candidates, three of whom are from the Northwest and Southwest provinces.

At the end of its session, the Council approved the Outcome of Cameroon’s UPR, which will be confirmed in a subsequent brief statement and a logical matrix of the recommendations that Cameroon “supported” or “noted.”[3]

======================================

[1]  U.N. Hum. Rts. Council,  Documentation (39th Regular Session). Previous posts about the current Cameroon UPR are listed in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries.com—Topical: CAMEROON.

[2]  U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Cameroon: Addendum (Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review)(Advance Unedited Version)(Sept. 12, 2018).

[3] For example, from its prior UPR, here are (1) U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Report of the Human Rights Council on its twenty-fourth session (Advance unedited version)(Jan. 27, 2014) and (2) U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, UPR of Cameroon: thematic list of recommendations (Matrice of recommendations).

U.N. Criticizes Cameroon for Reprisals Against Citizens Cooperating with U.N. Human Rights Activities       

On September 12, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued a report criticizing 38 countries, including Cameroon, for “harsh reprisals and intimidation for cooperating with the [U.N.] on human rights.”[1]

With respect to Cameroon, it stated the following: ”On 26 October 2017, special procedures mandate holders expressed concern about the increasingly threatening nature of the physical attacks on and intimidation and harassment of Ms. Maximilienne Ngo Mbe, of Central Africa Human Rights Defenders Network and Ms. Alice Nkom also of the Network and of an association for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, following their participation in the review of Cameroon by the Human Rights Committee in Geneva (CMR 5/2017). On 17 July 2018 the Government responded to the allegations.”[2]

Presumably this criticism will be raised on September 20 or 21 when the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland will hold its open session on consideration and adoption of the final outcome reports on  the latest Universal Periodic Reviews of 14 countries, including Cameroon.[3]

This consideration for Cameroon will be based upon the Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Cameroon (A/HRC/39/15, dated July 10, 2018), which is merely an unedifying compilation of the comments made by various countries and parties during the UPR process and which was discussed in an early post.[4]

======================================

[1] U.N. High Comm’r Hum. Rts, UN report warns of alarming scope and effect of reprisals on victims, activists and human rights defenders (Sept. 12, 2018).

[2]  U.N. Gen. Assembly, Report of the Secretary-General: Cooperation with the United Nations, its representative and mechanisms in the field of human rights (para. 31) (Aug. 13, 2018).

[3] U.N. Hum. Rts Council, Agenda and Annotations (39th session. 10-28 Sept. 2018).

[4] See Update on Universal Periodic Review of Cameroon Human Rights by U.N. Human Rights Council, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 26, 2018) (footnote 1 has citations to earlier posts about this UPR).

U.N. Criticizes Cuba for Reprisals Against Citizens Cooperating with U.N. Human Rights Activities

On September 12, U.N. Secretary-General  António Guterres issued a report criticizing 38 countries, including Cuba, for “harsh reprisals and intimidation for cooperating with the [U.N.] on human rights.”[1]

With respect to Cuba, it stated the following: “On 11 May 2018, the spokesperson for the High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that OHCHR had received worrying reports that officials in Cuba had prevented human rights defenders and civil society representatives from boarding flights to travel to meetings abroad, including United Nations meetings, on the pretext of requiring more detailed identity checks. They included 14 direct cases of Cubans informed by officials that the computer system required extra screening. Those measures have resulted in passengers missing their flights and therefore the meetings. Special procedures mandate holders have raised individual cases (CUB 1/2018). On 4 April 2018, the Government responded to the allegations.”[2]

The report also stated, “The Assistant Secretary-General addressed the allegations referred to above in writing on 11 April 2018. On 10 May 2018, the Government responded to the allegations.”

Presumably this criticism will be raised on September 20 or 21 when the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland will hold its open session on consideration and adoption of the final outcome reports on  the latest Universal Periodic Reviews of 14 countries, including Cuba.[3]

This consideration for Cuba will be based upon the Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Cuba (A/HRC/39/16, dated July 11, 2018), which is merely an unedifying compilation of the comments made by various countries and parties during the UPR process and which was discussed in an early post.[4]

==============================

[1] U.N. High Comm’r Hum. Rts, UN report warns of alarming scope and effect of reprisals on victims, activists and human rights defenders (Sept. 12, 2018).

[2] U.N. Gen. Assembly, Report of the Secretary-General: Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights (paras. 34-35) (Aug. 13, 2018).

[3] U.N. Hum. Rts Council, Agenda and Annotations (39th session. 10-28 Sept. 2018).

[4] See Update on Universal Periodic Review of Cuban Human Rights by U.N. Human Rights Council, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 26, 2018) (footnote 1 has citations to earlier posts about this UPR process).

Update on Universal Periodic Review of Cameroon Human Rights by U.N. Human Rights Council  

As discussed in prior posts, this year Cameroon’s human rights record is a subject of Universal Periodic Review by the U.N. Human Rights Council.[1]

On July 10 Cameroon’s UPR Working Group–Iraq, South Africa and the United Kingdom–released.its Report, which merely summarizes the prior events in this process and then lists all of the repetitive recommendations from other states in 196  paragraphs.[2]

At the 39th Session, September 10-28, the Council will consider and adopt “final outcome reports” on  the UPR of 14 states, including Cameroon.[3]

==================================

[1] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: Cameroon’s Human Rights Record Being Subjected to Universal Periodic Review by U.N. Human Rights Council: Background  (June 12, 2018); Cameroon’s Human Rights Record Being Subjected to Universal Periodic Review by U.N. Human Rights Council: The Pre-hearing Papers (June 12, 2018); Cameroon’s Human Rights Record Being Subjected to Universal Periodic Review by U.N. Human Rights Council:The UPR Hearing (June 16, 2018).

[2]  U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Report of the Working Group on Universal Periodic Review—Cameroon (July 10, 2018).

[3] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Agenda: Thirty-Ninth Session, 10-28 September 2018.

 

Update on Universal Periodic Review of Cuban Human Rights by U.N. Human Rights Council 

As discussed in prior posts, this year Cuba’s human rights record is a subject of Universal Periodic Review by the U.N. Human Rights Council.[1]

On July 11 Cuba’s UPR Working Group— Egypt, Nepal and Peru–released.its Report, which merely summarizes the prior events in this process and then lists all of the repetitive recommendations from other states in  339 paragraphs.[2]

At the Council’s 39th Session, September 10-28, it will consider and adopt “final outcome reports” on the UPR of 14 states, including Cuba.[3]

[1]  See these posts to dwkcommentaries.ccom: Cuba’s Human Rights Record Being Subjected to Universal Periodic Review by U.N. Human Rights Council (April 30, 2018); Advance Questions for Cuba’s Universal Periodic Review by the U.N. Human Rights Council (May 11, 2018); Cuba’s Universal Periodic Review Hearing by the U.N. Human Rights Council (May 24, 2018); Comment: Summary of UPR Recommendations for Cuba (May 26, 2018).

[2]  U..N. Hum. Rts. Council, Report of the Working Group on Universal Periodic Review–Cuba (July 11, 2018).

[3] U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Agenda: Thirty-Ninth Session, 10-28 September 2018.

 

U.S. Withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council 

On June 19 U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley announced that the U.S. had “withdrawn” from its membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council.[1] The Council’s current President, Ambassador Vojislav Šuc (Slovenia) immediately responded to this news.

Secretary Pompeo’s Remarks

“The Trump administration is committed to protecting and promoting the God-given dignity and freedom of every human being. Every individual has rights that are inherent and inviolable. They are given by God, and not by government. Because of that, no government must take them away.”

“For decades, the United States has led global efforts to promote human rights, often through multilateral institutions. While we have seen improvements in certain human rights situations, for far too long we have waited while that progress comes too slowly or in some cases never comes. Too many commitments have gone unfulfilled.”

“President Trump .. . has called out institutions or countries who say one thing and do another. And that’s precisely the problem at the . . . Council. As President Trump said at the UN General Assembly: “It is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the . . . Council.” In short, the Council now “is a poor defender of human rights.”

It “has become an exercise in shameless hypocrisy – with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored, and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself.” Those members include “authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela.” In addition, the Council’s “bias against Israel is unconscionable. Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined.”

Moreover, the U.S. “will not take lectures form hypocritical bodies and institution as Americans selflessly give their blood and treasure to help the defenseless.”

 Ambassador Haley’s Remarks

The Ambassador recalled her speech to the Council in June 2017 that “declared our intent to remain a part of the . . . Council if essential reforms were achieved.. . . to make the council a serious advocate for human rights.”[2]

She then provided details on how the U.S. since then unsuccessfully has endeavored to obtain such reforms. Therefore, the U.S. “is officially withdrawing from the . . . Council.”

The details of the failure of reform included: (a) the U.N. General Assembly last Fall electing as a Council member the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which “is widely known to have one of the worst human rights records in the world;” (b) the Council would not hold “a meeting on the human rights conditions in Venezuela” because it is a Council member; (c) early this year the Council passed five resolutions against Israel; (d) the U.S. effort to reform the Council was blocked by “unfree countries,” including “Russia, China, Cuba, and Egypt;” and (e) “many members that share U.S. values “were unwilling to seriously challenge the status quo.”

In contrast, she said, under U.S. leadership the U.N. Security Council this past 12 months held its “first ever . . . session dedicated to the connection between human rights and peace and security” and another session on “Iranian human rights.” In addition, last year the U.S. organized “an event on Venezuela outside the Human Rights Council chambers in Geneva.” And the Ambassador herself has traveled “to UN refugee and internally displaced persons camps in Ethiopia, Congo, Turkey, and Jordan, and met with the victims of atrocities in those troubled regions.”

Council President Šuc’s Statement[3]

“While I recognize it is the prerogative of any member State to take such a decision [to withdraw], I wish to acknowledge that the United States has been a very active participant at the Council having engaged constructively on numerous issues aimed at improving the lives of rights holders around the globe, including the many issues which we are addressing in our current session. The Human Rights Council always stands to benefit from constructive engagement of its member States.”

“In times when the value and strength of multilateralism and human rights are being challenged on a daily basis, it is essential that we uphold a strong and vibrant Council recognizing it as a central part of the United Nations for the 21st century.”

“Over the past 12 years, the . . . Council has tackled numerous human rights situations and issues keeping them in sharp focus.  In many senses, the Council serves as an early warning system by sounding the alarm bells ahead of impending or worsening crises.  Its actions lead to meaningful results for the countless human rights victims worldwide, those the Council serves.”

“The . . . Council is the only intergovernmental body responding to human rights issues and situations worldwide, with the active participation of civil society.  It provides a unique setting to hear a wide range of views, including those which other organizations are unable or unwilling to discuss.”

Conclusion

I disagree with the U.S. decision to withdraw from its membership on the Council for several reasons.

First, the Human Rights Council does not have the power to order any Council member or any other U.N. member to do anything. Instead it is “responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations and [making] recommendations on them. It has the ability to discuss all thematic human rights issues and situations that require its attention.” In short, it is a forum for discussion or debate on these issues, and the U.S. has an important voice to raise on these issues.

Second, there are 47 Council members, and although the U.S. correctly points out that some members have horrible human rights records, there is no claim that such countries constitute a majority of the Council. Moreover, no country in the world has a perfect record on these issues, including the U.S.

Third, all Council members, including the bad actors, are subject to Universal Periodic Review (UPR) every five years. A mere summary of the latest UPRs for the countries mentioned by Secretary Pompeo and Ambassador Haley shows that each of them received many recommendations for improving their human rights records, thereby negating or diminishing the notion advanced by these two U.S. officials that those with poor records escape censure by the Council.[4]

Fourth, the High Commissioner for Human Rights has the authority and responsibility to provide the Council with his or her assessment of human rights concerns in the world. The current High Commission did just that on June 18 (the day before the previously mentioned U.S. decision to withdraw from the Council).[5] In so doing he had critical comments about  seven of the nine countries identified by Pompeo and Haley as having bad human rights records (China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Iran, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela).

Fifth, the High Commissioner had these critical fact-based criticisms of    Israel and the U.S., which both countries should be willing and able to evaluate on their merits:

  • “Israel continues to deny access to the Occupied Palestinian Territory by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. This has been the case for three successive holders of the mandate. Access has also been denied to all of the Council’s previous Commissions of Inquiry, including on Gaza in 2014. I believe the Council’s advocacy of impartial monitoring and expert recommendations is entirely justified by the gravity of the situation, and I urge Israel to provide access to all human rights mechanisms – including the investigative body mandated last month – to enable impartial monitoring and advance accountability and justice.” (Emphasis in original.)
  • “In the United States, I am deeply concerned by recently adopted policies which punish children for their parents’ actions. In the past six weeks, nearly two thousand children have been forcibly separated from their parents. The American Association of Pediatrics has called this cruel practice ‘government-sanctioned child abuse’ which may cause ‘irreparable harm,’ with ‘lifelong consequences’. The thought that any State would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable. I call on the [U.S.] to immediately end the practice of forcible separation of these children, and I encourage the Government to at last ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in order to ensure that the fundamental rights of all children, whatever their administrative status, will be at the center of all domestic laws and policies.” (Emphasis in original.) [6]

==========================================

[1]  U.S. State Dep’t, Remarks on the UN Human Rights Council (June 19, 2018). The Council is made up of 47 U.N. Member States, which are elected by the majority of members of the U.N. General Assembly through direct and secret ballot. The Council’s Members serve for a period of three years and are not eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms. The U.S. is in its second consecutive term ending  January 1, 2019.

[2] Haley, Remarks at the United Nations Human Rights Council (June 6, 2017); Haley, Remarks at the Graduate Institute of Geneva on “A Place for Conscience: the Future of the United States in the Human Rights Council” (June 6, 2017).

[3] Human Rts. Council, Press Statement by the President of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Vojislav Šuc (Slovenia) (June 19, 2018)

[4] Human Rights Council: Report of the Working Group on the UPR-China (252 paragraphs of recommendations) (Dec. 4, 2013);Report of the Working Group on the UPR-Cuba (292 paragraphs of recommendations) (July 8, 2013); Report of the Working Group on the UPR-Democratic Republic of Congo (229 paragraphs of recommendations) (July 7, 2014); Report of the Working Group on the UPR-Ethiopia (252 paragraphs of recommendations) (July 7, 2014); Report of the Working Group on the UPR-Iran (291 paragraphs of recommendations) (Dec. 22, 2014); Report of the Working Group on the UPR-Jordan (173 paragraphs of recommendations) (Jan. 6, 2014); Report of the Working Group on the UPR-Russian Federation (231 paragraphs of recommendations) (July 8, 2013);Report of the Working Group on the UPR-Turkey (278  paragraphs of recommendations) (April 13, 2015); Report of the Working Group on the UPR-Venezuela (274  paragraphs of recommendations) (Dec. 27, 2016).

[5]  U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Opening statement and global update of human rights concerns by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Hussein at 38th session of the Human Rights Council (June 18, 2018).

[6] After a firestorm of criticism by the public and politicians from both major political parties, President Trump on June 20 signed an executive order ending the policy of separating immigrant children from their immigrant parents. (Haberman & Shear, Trump Signs Executive Order to Keep Families Together, N.Y. Times (June 20, 2018).)