HRC President Press conference 17 February 2021

A very good morning to everybody and thank you for joining us, a couple of colleagues here in person and the rest of you online.

It's it's a real pleasure for me to introduce you to Ambassador Nazat Shamim Khan of Fiji, the President of the Human Rights Council for 2021.

The ambassador wanted to take this opportunity to speak with you ahead of the 46th regular session.

It will prove to be a quite a very, a very busy session and Ambassador Khan will talk to you about that in a moment.

Then, of course, she wanted to really take this opportunity to meet you, albeit virtually.

Hopefully we'll have the opportunity to do so in person throughout the course of the year.

And just wanted to draw your attention to the documents I shared with you about 30 minutes ago, the usual A-Z document that is the the user friendly annotated agenda for the Human Rights Council session.

We also have the programme of work, which is still a bit of a moving target, so please be mindful of that.

And we have the list of speakers for the **** level segment, which commences on Monday.

[Other language spoken]

So that has also been shared with you, as has a list of draught resolutions that have been announced earlier at an organisational meeting.

And these are 30 for the moment.

And of course, just to draw your attention to the fact that you should have received by now the background press release in English and French about an hour ago, which addresses this session.

Of course, I also just wanted to take a brief moment to introduce my colleague, Matt Brown.

He's maybe off camera here, Matt, he's familiar to some of you, but he'll be working with me throughout the session.

So without further ado, I'm turning over to Ambassador Con for some opening remarks and then to you for your questions.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much indeed to to Rolando for organising this event and good morning to you all.

[Other language spoken]

As you all know, this is the first time that Fiji has taken the presidency of the Human Rights Council and indeed the first time that a an ambassador from the Pacific region, from the Pacific small island states has taken over the presidency.

And in that context especially, I am very happy to speak with you today and I look forward to the interactive discussions that we will be having not just today but in the course of the year.

I look forward to working not just with member states of the Council but also with Observer States and very importantly with non government organisations and civil society and of course with you members of the media.

And I think together we can make human rights a reality.

We work together and we promote those values that we hold particularly dear in the work of the Council.

I will take a few minutes to tell you a bit about myself because I know that this may be of interest to some of you.

I was born in Fiji and my parents are descendants of immigrants to Fiji.

My mother was a school teacher and my father was a poet and a playwright and I am one of four sisters and the emphasis in my upbringing was on education, on reading.

I can remember many, many hours with books, shelves and shelves full of books and I feel that it was really the a very good grounding for an academic future for all of us in the family.

I studied in Fiji until I went to university and then I went to university in the United Kingdom.

I became a barrister at law at the Inner Temple in London after finishing my law studies and then I came back to Fiji to practise there and was admitted to the to the Bar of of Fiji, the **** Court of Fiji where I practised as a prosecutor for 16 years.

And after 10 years of being a prosecutor, I became the Director of Public Prosecutions, which in for those of you who are familiar with common law jurisdictions, is the person who is responsible for the conduct of prosecutions throughout the country.

After six years as Director of Public Prosecutions, I was appointed a **** Court judge and as you know, I was the first woman in Fiji to become a **** Court judge.

And I stayed in the judiciary for 10 years, mostly conducting trials and hearing appeals in criminal matters, but also hearing a number of human rights applications.

And my time in the judiciary coincided with the introduction of a constitution in 1997 of a very strong Bill of Rights, a Bill of Rights which reflected the way that international law had shaped the human rights journey.

And specifically it had not only a provision for the creation of human rights institutions in Fiji, the the National Human Rights Institution, but it also gave very strong enforcement powers to the judiciary.

And so for the first time, the judges of Fiji and of course my service coincided with this time, the judges of Fiji were asked to enforce rights in an extremely useful and helpful manner and in a way which really focused on what the applicant needed, the remedies that the applicant needed as a result of an alleged violation of human rights.

It was a very challenging time for the judiciary.

It was a very steep learning curve and it was a time in which we were able to use international human rights to shape the jurisprudence of human rights in Fiji.

And it was at that time, together with my experience as a prosecutor, that I particularly became interested in the global development of human rights and how they were implemented in in domestic jurisdictions and what an important role law enforcement agencies could have in that particular journey.

So when I left the judiciary in 2009 and started up my own law practise, I conducted a number of training programmes on law and governance, but also importantly on human rights.

And when this opportunity arose to come to Geneva for the opening of the Fiji Mission for the first time, I was very happy to accept the offer of the Fijian Government to become the first Ambassador here in Geneva in 2014.

When I arrived here, I very quickly discovered that the Pacific Island countries had very little voice here.

First of all, not all Pacific Island countries have missions here.

So today there are only four small island states from the Pacific which are represented here in their missions.

And so therefore we had to work very hard to ensure that the voices of the Pacific were heard in Geneva at the Human Rights Council.

And of course, primarily on issues such as disaster, displacement, disasters in human rights, climate change, and on the separate human rights journeys that we in the Pacific have taken because of our commitment to to implementing human rights on the ground.

I still believe that one of the most challenging parts of the conversation that we have here in Geneva is discovering ways in which we can effectively implement rights on the ground.

The important conversations we have here, the crucial resolutions that are adopted, the debates that we hear, those will not have relevance to the people on the ground in our countries unless we are able to translate the work of the Council to our own countries.

And in that context, a small island state from the Pacific.

Having the Presidency this year gives enormous relevance to the Council in a region such as ours and vice versa.

By having the presidency this year from the Pacific and from Fiji, it is a conduit for the extra, the additional relevance of the Pacific to the Council.

With the Council saying, well we're hearing you and we're listening to you and we are, we are also enabled in giving you a leadership as a small island country.

So this was an enormous honour for our region, an enormous honour for our country, but it's also a very important message for the relevance of the Council to the Pacific, an important message of the relevance of the Pacific to the Council.

So that's all I'll say about myself.

But of course, you, you, you may wish to ask additional questions later when we we open the floor for those questions.

So I now wish to turn to the 46 session because I know there's a great deal of interest in what will be an entirely virtual 46 session because of the COVID-19 restrictions.

The preparations for the 46 session have been very intense because we are constrained in the circumstances that we find ourselves in, to ensure that the modalities that we adopt as a council are those which are safe, which preserve the health of everyone, but at the same time ensure that the Council will not be closed down because of the pandemic.

Indeed, it is an important message and an important moment in our history to emphasise the relevance of the Council by saying that despite the fact that we're in the midst of a global pandemic, we will remain open.

And I think this is an important message for the for the global community.

So we've had to reinvent the way that we do our work, and I'm very fortunate in having a very strong, a very cohesive, a very effective Bureau comprised of the ambassadors of the Bahamas, Bulgaria, the Sudan, and I'm sorry, Sudan and the Netherlands.

And of course, with excellent support from the Council Secretariat and you and our colleagues, we continuously look for ways in which we can ensure that there is additional access to the Council, that no one's voices are silenced.

And in particular that we continue to hear the kind of inclusive interactive debates and dialogues and conversations that we have had when we were able to do them in person.

Very clearly, the Council cannot afford to be silent in these times.

And the human rights dimensions of the coronavirus are vast.

[Other language spoken]

We're hearing from Member States and from observer states about what is happening on the ground.

The non government organisations are telling us vividly what is happening on the ground.

And it is a time when which the relationship between COVID-19 and human rights is in focus and will be in this 26 session particularly.

You have details already of the of the session itself.

So I'm not going to go through it in detail.

You have it before you.

But I do want to highlight a few issues.

Nearly 100 reports will be presented in this session.

More than 30 human rights experts and groups will address the session and as of today, 130 dignitaries are participating in the **** level segment.

This is the highest number we've had, the **** level segment.

And it's interesting because in the one session that we are having a completely virtual **** level segment, we have an unprecedented level of interest and participation from dignitaries around the world.

And that really does speak well to the for the affirmation of the relevance of the Council at this time.

We also have 7 panel discussions scheduled to take place during the session, with the first one taking place on the opening day, which is next Monday.

And it's going to focus on the effects of COVID-19 on efforts to combat racism and discrimination.

The **** level panel will benefit from the participation of the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary General and the **** Commissioner for Human Rights.

So this will be an extremely important panel and I would recommend it to you.

The six other panel discussions will address the death penalty, poverty alleviation, the rights of the child in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, the rights of persons with disabilities with a focus on their participation in sport, and racial discrimination.

Approximately 40 themes and 50 country situations will be addressed report presentations and we expect others to be addressed during general debates.

And of course, there will be many other opportunities for the discussion of country situations.

If you look at the A-Z booklet that you have before you, you will get a detailed account of these issues and they are addressed per mandated reports and updates.

The themes include child and women's rights, the environment, counterterrorism and extremism, the rights of people with African descent, racism and discrimination, including an oral update by the **** Commissioner as a follow up to the urgent debate that the Council had last year following the death of George Floyd and COVID-19, which will be the focus of the panel I mentioned a short while ago and also the subject of several reports by independent experts.

So you will be continuously hearing this theme of COVID-19 and human rights.

Let me turn to country situations.

We will hear updates and reports on Belarus as a follow up to last year's urgent debate on Burundi.

From the Commission of Enquiry on Sri Lanka, on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic on Yemen, from the Group of Experts on the Occupied Palestinian Territory on South Sudan, from the Commission on Human Rights and from the Independent Experts on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran and Mali, as well as Myanmar, WHO will provide an update on the latest situation in the country for the resolution that we adopted last week.

If you recall, at the special session session on Myanmar.

In addition to this, the Council will also hear the presentation of 2 reports from the Commission of Enquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, one providing a retrospective of the human rights situation in the country 10 years after the crisis began, and a second report providing A comprehensive overview on arbitrary imprisonment and detention in the country.

On Monday, as noted in the list that we have shared with you, the President of the General Assembly will address the opening of the session, followed by the Secretary General.

The **** Commissioner for Human Rights will also address the opening, as will the head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland.

Thereafter, we will begin the **** level segment, which, as I have said already, will be for the first time entirely virtually, with all dignitaries addressing the Council who pre recorded video messages.

On the 25th of February, which is next Thursday, the **** Commissioner for Human Rights will present her oral update to the Council on the activities of her office and latest developments in the area of human rights worldwide.

And on the following day, States Force will have chance to respond to her statement.

During the general debate at the end of the session, we will be taking action on a series of draught resolutions, and the handout that you have before you lists thirty such initiatives that States will take this session based on their announcement at our organisational meeting last week.

We do expect to receive additional information on other texts to be tabled, and these speak to a wide range of issues which testify also to our expanding mandate.

So how are we going to take action on draught resolutions virtually?

This is an important issue for the Council because we would have to approach this question for the first time of how we're going to do this virtually.

And of course, the action is taken on the last two days of the session on the 22nd and the 23rd of March.

We are still discussing different scenarios for how we're going to vote virtually and we will first, of course, look at demonstrations of what is proposed by the Secretariat.

There will be a demonstration by Member States to ensure that there is comfort and acceptance and then we will consider a model for voting on at the end of the session for the adoption.

We will keep you abreast as to the developments and I can assure you that there is a lot of hard work, a lot of focused hard work on ensuring that we do that we are able to vote virtually for the adoption of resolutions at the end of the session because of the COVID restrictions.

And that we will do so in a way which preserves the health and safety of everyone whilst enabling the credibility and integrity of the voting process.

So you, as you can see, we've got an enormous workload ahead.

It's very important that we continue to consult closely with with states, both observer and member states, with regional groups, with non government organisations and that we continue to keep you fully informed about the way in which the Council intends to approach it's work.

Looking, I'm looking forward to invaluable support.

What we do in the Council is of limited value if the world does not hear and see what we do.

And so therefore I look forward to your support and your engagement throughout this process.

If we, at this time of the COVID-19 pandemic, I'm not able to address the injustices and the breaches and violations of human rights at this time, then the relevance of the Council would be in question.

And so I look forward to your continued engagement.

And I look forward also to, to speaking you with you in the next, in the next, this next segment.

So thank you very much indeed.

Thank you for your attention and over to you.

Thank you so very much, Ambassador Khan.

As you can all hear that it's quite a lot on the agenda as as the Ambassador just spelled out.

I wanted just to point out one thing before I turn over to you for questions.

I perhaps should have mentioned it in my opening remarks, but just to note that Syria, we have a report from the Commission of Inquiry on Syria that will be made public at 9:00 AM tomorrow morning.

So that's 9:00 AM tomorrow morning.

I'll send you the details in a short media advisory where you can find that report.

That's so 9:00 AM Syria Commission of Inquiry report.

And this will provide a retrospective overview of the human rights violations in the country, an occasion of the grim occasion of the 10th anniversary of the conflict, which is we're nearly approaching second point very quickly.

South Sudan Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.

They will.

I'm just told that they will have a press conference at 9:30 on Friday morning.

And that's another announcement which we'll share with you shortly.

So 9:30 Friday morning, South Sudan.

And tomorrow, Thursday, 9 AMA report to be presented by you, Syria Commissioner Inquiry over to you for questions.

We have Laurent.

Let me just first let's take Peter Kenney in the room, then we'll turn over to Laurent Ciero of Swiss News.

[Other language spoken]

Yes, thank you for taking my question and thank you for this press conference.

Ambassador Khan, you mentioned last week when you spoke at the special session that there were financial difficulties or.

Challenges that face the Human Rights Council, are these due to the holding of virtual meetings or are they due to other financial constraints that the council faces?

Could you elaborate on these please?

I'm a freelance journalist and I also work for Anna Dulu Agency.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much.

I think that the financial constraints were with us before COVID-19.

So we have been hearing about financial constraints facing not just the Human Rights Council, but also the United Nations system as a whole.

And we've all had to tighten our belts for some time before the COVID-19 crisis.

And we've also had to streamline our work.

There was a special process of consultation through a the Co facilitators through the appointed by the Human Rights Council President two years ago on efficiency and the efficiency process is intended to make our work more efficient so as to save money as well as to make better use of the time that we have in the council.

So the financial constraints facing the council pre existed COVID.

Having said that, when you are moving to digital platforms and you're trying very hard to ensure that no one is left behind and their voices are heard, there are financial constraints.

There are financial constraints in adopting platforms and ensuring that planned platforms have interpretation in the UN languages.

All of that costs money.

So the the financial restrictions I would say continue.

They've taken on greater demand in a way because of the fact that we've had to move to a virtual operation system.

But they were, they are not caused by COVID.

They were there.

They pre existed crisis, but but we have been able to function efficiently despite the financial constraints.

And I think that is because of the determination of everyone, all stakeholders that the Council should continue to sit.

So flexibility has been shown and the efficiency process by consensus, it was agreed by consensus last year that the efficiency process should should continue in the in the form that it was recommended in 2019.

So I would say that there's plenty of determination by states that the Council should proceed, that we should have as much cost cutting as possible.

But there continues to be concerned that what we would like to do, we are not necessarily able to do in the way we we wish because of the financial constraints.

So we do look for some hope at the end of the tunnel that perhaps this financial load will be lightened in the future.

[Other language spoken]

Now I'll turn to Laurent Ciaro from Swiss News Agency.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you, thank you, Thank you Ronaldo.

Thank you Ambassador for the briefing.

You mentioned the the huge participation which is expected.

Now 4 out of the five permanent members of the Security Council are members of the Human Rights Council, and the US has announced that they're going to re engage first as an observer with the Council.

So do you expect more polarised, politicised discussions?

[Other language spoken]

So first of all, we welcome the re engagement of the United States.

I think one of the strengths of the Council is its diversity.

So we cannot have 47 member states of the Council, all of whom think exactly like each other.

That not only would be a very difficult scenario, but it would also not reflect the way the world is and the realities of of world politics.

So This is why it's really important that everybody engages with the Council, either as member states or observers, and that includes members of the Security Council and includes those countries which might not think exactly the same as other members of the Council.

I think diversity is one of the Council's strengths.

[Other language spoken]

I would also like to say this, that many questions have been asked about me, about the human rights records of particular countries on the Council.

I firmly believe that there is no country in the world which has a perfect human rights record.

And so when we go through an election process in the General Assembly for membership of the Council, although your human rights record is extremely relevant and valuable, it's, it's a very important part of the conversation.

The fact is we all have to accept that even the most developed and the best performing countries in the world have issues.

They have issues that they must deal with.

And we know this through the Universal periodic review process because there are recommendations made to some countries which are extremely developed and seem to be well on the path to ratification and implementation of human rights standards.

And yet there is always room for improvement.

So very important.

I don't think the perfection of human rights records is what we must we can aspire to, but I do think that having full engagement with the Council by all countries is valuable, important and essential if the Council is to have credibility with with all communities and all countries in the world.

So again, we welcome the engagement of everyone and we welcome the renewed interest and engagement of the United States of America.

Thank you very much.

[Other language spoken]

If we can now turn to Christian from German television ARD, we can unmute Christian, please.

Thank you, great Christian.

Actually a German press agency.

Well, that's fine.

Ambassador Khan, your selection.

[Other language spoken]

Maybe if you can try try posing that question again please.

Sorry, can you hear me now?

[Other language spoken]

It's Kristiana with the German Press Agency.

The selection process that preceded your accession to this role was very controversial and difficult.

Your predecessor in interviews has mentioned a lot of pressure and politics that came into the chancellor, and that seems to be an effort to reinterpret what human rights mean.

Do you have, is the impression that there, there are discussions in the council to reinterpret human rights or do we all talk about the same thing like freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of, yeah, individual freedoms versus collective human rights, which seems to be a concept, for example, promoted by China?

[Other language spoken]

I, I'm so sorry, I'm not sure I got the whole of your, of your comment and do correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that you, you firstly raised the issue of the election of the president of, of my, of my presidency, saying that it was controversial.

And secondly, that you said that this was really symptomatic of different views of human rights and the implementation of human rights and what human rights are, and that there isn't necessarily a similar view held by all countries on what human rights are and what this journey should be.

So let me just approach the second question first because I think it's it's relevant for the answer because it reflects on the first issue that you raised.

I think that necessarily different countries and different communities have different views, different perspectives about what priorities should be given to particular rights.

So often you find, you hear from developing countries that the right to water, for instance, the right to sanitation, the right to access to health and to education, that these are priorities for their countries.

Whereas you will hear from other countries that although those rights are extremely important, of course they March side by side with civil and political rights, such as the rights to peacefully demonstrate freedom of association, freedom of the media, that these are, these are enabling rights.

So if you have civil and political rights, you are then able to implement other rights.

I think rather than to describe it as as a different view on what rights are, I would say that different countries have different perspectives of what rights should be given particular priority.

I would see it that way.

And I would also they say this, that I don't see that these rights can be divided and seen separately from each other.

I think human rights are indivisible and I'll give you an example.

If somebody from a discriminated against minority group in a country were to apply for adequate housing because of the discrimination against minority groups and because of the inability of that particular individual to access ordinary government services because of that discrimination has a direct impact on the right to an adequate house, I would say that those rights are indivisible.

So the language of discrimination then effects social, economic and cultural rights.

I think that that conversation really shows that different countries have different perspectives on the relationship between development and human rights.

And that's why the debate and the conversation on the Sustainable Development Goals and human rights and on the right to development, which is increasingly A focused discussion of the Human Rights Council.

These are particularly valuable because I think they bridge this particular gap between different perspectives.

I think they help all countries to understand that you can't separate one right from another, that they are all so closely connected that the best thing is that we see all of these rights from the from the perspective of access to services, access to standards which give humanity and dignity to everyone, and also access to being able to speak about this.

So access to information is absolutely crucial to all of this.

So I think it's it's a difference in perspective on on what human rights should look like in the implementation journey in particular countries.

If I can go back to the issue that you raised earlier about the way in which I took the presidency this year, I know that there were media reports and, and there were certainly 3 candidates from the Asia Pacific group.

And in the past when there have been several candidates from one regional group, the regional group has resolved the issue through its own internal process.

So the reason why there was an election in this particular case was because there were three candidates and there was no resolution between and amongst these three, which is why the Council voted for the first time for a president.

And I'm hearing increasingly that it was not a bad thing at all, that going for a vote on the Council was a democratic process.

It's very transparent.

It allowed all the member states of the Council to have their say about the kind of president that they would like to see.

And it also allowed us as candidates, in speaking to member states, to clearly articulate what we stood for, what we believed in each of the candidates.

And so I think that the fact that there was a vote this year is not a bad thing.

I think it's a very positive thing.

And it's a democratic process and the whole world could see the basis on which it was done.

So I think it's actually an improvement in due process.

I don't think it's a regression.

And I'm so sorry.

You did raise something else, but I just couldn't hear you because of the quality of the call.

I think there was a third matter that you raised, but I I was not able to catch that.

[Other language spoken]

Over to you, Rolando.

[Other language spoken]

Sorry, Christian for misidentifying you.

If perhaps if there is a question which wasn't addressed, we can discuss offline later.

If we can now unmute Jamil Shad, I think he's a different identity here and Zoom.

But if we can unmute Jamil Shad, there we go.

[Other language spoken]

Chris, can you hear me?

[Other language spoken]

I'm Shamil Shad, I'm a journalist from Brazil, and I'm president.

Sorry for my identification.

My son probably went in my account, but that's something else.

My request to you is basically twofold.

First of all, regarding the racism and the report on George, George Floyd's initiative that was taken last year, what, what exactly do you expect this year?

Probably you've spoken at the beginning, but when, when are you, when are you planning to present, not the report itself, not the the debate itself, but the report, when will us from the press, when we'll have access to it?

So this is the first question.

And second, yes, we do understand that every country has issues and then no one is perfect.

And obviously developed countries have huge issues to deal.

But we do also have countries deliberately trying to undermine not only human rights, but also the multilateral system.

And specifically I'm asking about the case of President Bolsonaro in Brazil, who, for example, is closing up any possibilities of NGOs to take part on national policies, promoting guns and so on and on and on.

So yes, obviously there are differences between countries and yes, this should be put in the Council.

But at the same time, aren't you?

Don't you think that the Council is also giving undue space and perhaps even a platform for these governments that do represent a ****** to their own people?

Thank you very much for the question.

Your first issue was about the update from the debate on systemic racism, which was the result of the urgent debate last year after the death of George Floyd, And I just want to draw your attention to the oral update by the **** Commissioner.

Commissioner on Systemic racism violations and international human rights law against Africans and people of African descent by law enforcement agencies, especially those incidents that resulted in the death of George Floyd and other Africans and a people of African descent.

And that will be in the form of an oral update on the 18th of March.

So that will be the follow up from the the urgent debate your your question about human rights records of countries.

So then during the elections for members of the Council, what are we members of the General Assembly to do?

Are we to ask ourselves who's worse, Marshall Islands or Nauru, Fiji or New Caledonia?

I mean, which new and, and, and the fact is this that if you go on that kind of journey, what you're saying is that you prioritise particular examples of human rights violations over others.

And so, for instance, a very developed country, which might do very well in some areas of human rights, but does very badly on migrants, for instance, how would you grade them?

So this there is a judgement involved in the election process.

There's no doubt at all.

And there's a judgement process because human rights records are a relevant criteria in choosing members of the council.

That is very, very clear and that is of course relevant.

But nevertheless, if we were to say that there were no complaints against any particular country or if there was a UPR that showed a perfect record of human rights compliance, then I'm afraid we wouldn't have any members at all.

And we would go through a very judge mental process of deciding who's worse and really who's worse and who does better.

Does depend on your perspective of which human rights are more important than over others, which is relevant.

The conversation I had just earlier a little earlier, so it is relevant.

It is important to to have a trajectory towards human rights compliance and I would say this about the value of the work that individual states do.

The question is not whether you have a perfect record because none of us has a perfect record.

The question is whether you face the reality of your imperfect record and you are now addressing the journey and aspiring to deal with those imperfections.

So if a country is able to say, look, we have a problem with gender, sexual and gender based violence and we have to deal with it and we know we have to deal with it and we've accepted recommendations on this in our last UPR.

Well, I should think that country, even though that country may have a very bad wreck of sexual and gender based violence, that country is 1 which is going to benefit from work at the council and which will benefit the discussions at the Human Rights Council because that country is facing the reality of its own imperfections, its own history, what's and all, and is facing a future where the council becomes a valuable partner.

I think that's the issue.

The issue is an attitudinal 1 and this journey that we're all on perfect and with all our imperfections, this journey is whether we accept our imperfections and wish to do better.

And I think ultimately that should be the test for membership of the council.

[Other language spoken]

And maybe just to point out, as Yamil, you will have seen in the **** level segment list, we have Brazil speaking on Monday just after 2:00 PM.

And this is exceptionally.

We have two ministers from Brazil in fact addressing the Council sharing the seven minute time slot, Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Women, Family and Human Rights of Brazil.

Now if we could unmute Catherine Fiancan, we can unmute.

Catherine.

[Other language spoken]

Catherine, do you hear me?

We hear you loud and clear, yes?

Yes, thank you so much.

First of all, Madam, thank you for for being there.

I'm the the Vice president of the Academy Association of Accredited Correspondents at UN and we wishing you a warm welcome and wishing you good luck for this very important position.

And you are a real example for women around the world and we, we are very proud to see that.

[Other language spoken]

So my question is now related to COVID-19 and the access to vaccination, the right to health.

I know that there's a couple of.

Events that are going to take place related to the impact of COVID-19.

But I would like you to elaborate a little bit on the access to vaccination.

And I have then a second question about the access to information.

We've seen that with the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of countries, States and entities are taking advantage to restrict the access to information and to stop press representatives to work properly.

Thank you so much, and I'm representing Franz van Gatto, French International Channel.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much and thank you for your kind welcoming remarks as well.

On access to the vaccine, we look forward to discussions around a draught resolution led by Ecuador in this session on the guarantee of the right to health through equitable and universal access to vaccines in response to pandemic and other health emergencies.

So I think that is exactly on point as far as the issue that you raise.

And of course, that is a draught resolution that is going through go go through a negotiation process and there will be many opportunities for states to express their views about how strong they want the language or how they want the access to vaccines to be expressed.

So it's, it's very topical, it's a topical resolution.

In addition to that, of course, under COVID-19 and the pamphlet you've been, you've you've been given out.

There are many opportunities for debate on COVID-19 and the human rights implications and particularly, for instance, on issues such as the exploitation of children, the enjoyment of human rights around the world, which is the report on the **** Commissioner, and other aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals, for instance.

All of which I think are going to bring in this discussion on equal access to vaccines and how vulnerability is going to impact equal access and how it's going to be implemented on the ground.

So I think this is a very important conversation and I look forward to hearing the views of states on that.

There was a second issue.

Catherine, could you repeat your second question again?

I'm sorry, I can't recall what it was now.

[Other language spoken]

My second question is related to access to information that is restricted.

[Other language spoken]

So this is this is a, this is a very important conversation, not just access to information, but also ability to associate freedom of movement, freedom of the media, the whole conversation around fake news.

All of this I think is an important conversation.

I think we will hear of this, this relationship between the response of countries in restricting rights in a a global pandemic and the right itself and whether countries have got the balance right.

It's a very important conversation.

I think the experts particularly will be presenting examples to us in the course of this session.

I would recommend that we follow all of those debates to see how the Council and its mechanisms approaches it.

But this balancing exercise between rights and limitations in a crisis, I think is one of the most important questions in the world today.

So I look forward to the way that States and observers and other stakeholders approach the issue.

[Other language spoken]

We have a question from body Hogger body, if we can unpute him.

[Other language spoken]

The suit of all the items, the discussion of digital risk disappeared.

Will you re speak and realise the protection of individual privacy this year?

And second question is regarding to the COVID-19 and the nationalism race, how to avoid Human Rights Council becoming a political weapon?

And regard to the third one, yes, I'm, I, I don't invite you to come to our again, new press conference this year if it's possible.

[Other language spoken]

The privacy the the individual privacy, the private of how could we protect the personal private information regarding to the digital risk.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much for that.

Thank you, and the Human Rights Council will consider a report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.

He is going to address data privacy guidelines for the development and operation of artificial intelligence solutions.

And he will also a report on his missions to Argentina, France, Germany, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

And I would invite you to hear from him and his reports on the 5th of March, because I think that the all of these discussions around privacy and limitations on the right to privacy in the current digital age are extremely topical and important.

I'm also looking forward to this discussion.

And if I heard you correctly, buddy, you were asking about the possibility of a briefing with with Acanu, but certainly we can talk about that at a later stage.

[Other language spoken]

We have another question from Laurent.

[Other language spoken]

A few very short questions.

First, I count 10 heads of States and and Heads of Government speaking on morning, morning.

Is that also a record?

And then on the voting process, first, whether some members that were reluctant to go for a remote voting process?

And secondly, do you have a contingency plan in case of problem?

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much.

Yes, I think actually we have an unprecedented number of dignitaries.

As to whether the heads of state are also unprecedented, they're also, I'm being told that this is also unprecedented.

So this is really a marvellous thing for the relevance and importance of the Council and it does show that in these difficult times, Heads of State have made the effort to record a video statement to talk about their priorities and concerns and I think that is to be to be welcomed on virtual voting.

So it's very natural, I think for states which are going to vote in this process to be worried about whether a virtual voting system is going to be credible and transparent because of course, voting in the Council is not by secret ballot for the adoption of resolutions.

[Other language spoken]

And as you all know, we used to vote before the pandemic and indeed did so until October of last year in Room 20 by pressing a button which immediately translated itself into the result of our vote on the screen.

So not only we could see in the room, but also the world could see because it was all live webcast.

So that is the situation that Member states would like to see replicated virtually.

And we all know the hiccups with virtual platforms.

We've all been struggling with them for the past one year since we've experienced it's every kind of platform you can think of to try and communicate with each other.

So they all have difficulties.

And then in addition to that, we must provide interpretation of the discussions in the UN languages.

So these two requirements of Member States have been very clearly expressed in my consultation processes with every regional group and we take them very seriously.

They are actually at the core of the participation work of the Council.

What the Secretariat is now working on is a system which replicates as closely as possible what we had in Room 20.

And I think this is very important.

It's very important that the voting results be credible so that there is no security breach, so no one is voting for someone else by mistake.

There has to be a proper accreditation process.

There must be total transparency.

We're sure of the person who's voting and the accuracy of the vote.

And then we must be sure that the results of the voting are transparent so the world can see who voted in what way.

This is the way the Human Rights Council has always worked, so we're hoping to meet those concerns by adopting a virtual voting system shortly in the course of the 46 session, which will be agreed to by all Member States, which will vote.

But again, it's a premature discussion because I myself have not seen what this is looking like, nor has the Bureau seen it.

And of course, most importantly, the Member States haven't seen it.

So we would like to have a system which removes doubt about the credibility and the integrity of the virtual voting system.

And we hope therefore to remove the concerns and to deal with the concerns and to respond to them of of the of the states which are voting.

But as I've said, it's work in progress at present.

[Other language spoken]

Indeed, it's a very complex issue and I'll certainly make sure to keep you abreast of all the different discussions they're on.

And now if we could unmute Nick coming, Bruce of the New York Times.

[Other language spoken]

Thanks for taking this question.

You talked about the greater kind of international attention to the Council and the higher level participation.

I'm wondering, as an ambassador who's been watching the Council now for more than six years, whether you in fact think that it is becoming more relevant in terms of the effect it has on the ground and what you would point to as examples of how the Council is becoming having more effect on rights on the ground or less effect?

[Other language spoken]

Thank you for that.

[Other language spoken]

I have seen in the past six years a number of country specific situations which started off as resolutions without the consent of the state and moving to a situation where you have the full participation and cooperation of the state and the movement to an agenda item on Technical Support and capacity building.

So that's very good news.

The fact that the Council can assist in the journey of a country which starts off in the midst of a very unpleasant conflict with all sorts of alleged human rights violations, to a situation where the country is working with the OHCHR to rebuild after conflict and crisis and to work with the Council to do so.

With the Council taking on a sort of monitoring role and hearing consistent reports about how the country is doing.

I think that's already very good progress and I've seen that happen in a number of cases.

There've also been other discussions, I think which have been enormously relevant as we as we face new concerns and new challenges in the world.

And of course, at the top of that list has to be climate change.

The way in which the climate change resolution has been adopted by consensus in the last few years, the way in which the the resolution has shown flexibility and address particular areas of human rights which climate change has an impact on, shows I think the relevance of the Council.

The Council is able to accept by consensus that there is first of first of all, a close Nexus between human rights and climate change, and secondly that it affects a whole host of communities and concerns.

I think this is another area that you can see how the Council has really shown its adaptability and flexibility and responded to to global concerns.

The third is the creation of new mandates.

So, for instance, the new mandate on SOGI shows that the Council is able to really step up to concerns of the global community and particularly in relation to allegations of violence and discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The fact that that resolution was passed only recently and a mandate holder created, I think also shows that the Council can reflect the concerns of the global community.

On your the second aspect of your question about the implementation of rights on the ground, this is a question and an issue very dear to my heart.

And I have said on many occasions, we are only having a very pleasant conversation, a very dignified, a very **** level conversation in Geneva.

But actually it has no significance for the world if we're not able to implement those decisions and those conversations on the ground in our own specific countries.

So the mechanisms of the Council are really valuable for implementation and I have seen it myself as an ambassador even before Fiji became a member of the council.

And the first valuable mechanism I would say for implementing rights on the ground would be the Universal Periodic Review process where every country and it is an equaliser.

Even the most developed countries in the world subject themselves to the Universal Periodic Review and they answer questions about some of the most difficult areas of their development.

And of course they respond.

They accept recommendations in most cases, and then they implement them on the ground.

And then very importantly, they have to report back in the next cycle because states normally ask them again.

Well, we recommended that you do something about sexual harassment in the workplace, for instance.

What have you done about it?

We haven't seen any sign of progress.

This is not only an equaliser, but it's a story of implementation and the Universal Periodic Review has almost taken on a life of its own as many countries are adopting processes which align the implementation of human rights with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

And and they have mechanisms within their countries which are interagency, inter ministerial and which involves civil society which allow for effective implementation.

I think that's the second journey that I've seen where the UPR has really developed in a very positive way and has helped this implementation journey.

And the third mechanism that I would say is very important is of course the work of the special mandate holders.

So it's not just the country visits, it's also the reports that they make which help to emphasise the relevance of the council and particular rights on the ground.

And I think those reports of the special mandate holders which increasingly show flexibility in the in the full light of day.

So, for instance, with COVID-19, many special mandate holders delivered reports to the council about the way in which COVID-19 affected the right that they are particular owners of if if we can use that word or caretakers of.

So to me, this is about relevance, but it's also about implementation on the ground.

But it's work in progress.

It's very important that we ambassadors in Geneva continue to work closely with our own countries, that we align ourselves very closely with those ministries which need to implement rights, that we keep pushing particular agencies, that we continue to reach out to non government organisations.

We ensure that in the work that we do as countries in our communities that it is in partnership with the OHCHR, with the IOM, with the ILO and with civil society groups to ensure that these rights mean something to every person on the ground.

And lastly, I'd say one more thing.

If there is one failing that we have in the international community, it's a lack of coherence.

So sometimes projects are delivered on the ground which are repetitive and which do not involve consultation with all the agencies which are involved.

For instance, in a country in the Pacific region, it would be a mistake if you were to try to implement, implement particular rights without talking very closely with all of the UN agencies on the ground, as well as with the community, with church groups and community groups, with women, with children, with persons with disabilities.

And I think that if we don't work towards greater coherence in that conversation, there will be a gap in implementation.

Thank you very much indeed.

Thank you, Ambassador, for those inspiring words.

And as we're approaching the one hour mark, we have maybe time for just one last question.

So if we can unmute Catherine.

Yes, thank you so much for giving the floor again.

I would like to ask you kindly if it would be possible, as journalists are unable to be in the Palace, Could it be possible to organise some press conference with the special mandate holders?

[Other language spoken]

I was expecting that question and thank you for posing it, Catherine.

Indeed, we, we will do what we can.

These press conferences would be virtual as the rapporteurs are not able to travel here, but we are, we are in touch with some of them who've expressed interest.

We haven't announced any yet apart from the one I just announced, not rapporteurs per SE, but the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.

As I mentioned, they will do a virtual press conference at 9:30 on Friday morning, just for starters.

And I expect that there will be a slew of others that will be announced over the course of the next month.

So we'll certainly do what we can to schedule those in a smart way for you.

On that note, maybe I can just thank you once again, Ambassador Khan, for your time for being with with us here and for all of you, of course, for joining us.

And we will certainly keep you up to date on all the developments.

And thank you in advance for for your sharp reporting.

[Other language spoken]