Council Concludes Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence The Human Rights Council this morning held its biennial panel discussion on unilateral coercive measures and human rights, under the theme of the impact of unilateral coercive measures and over-compliance on the right to development and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The Council also concluded the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said his Office had repeatedly recommended that Member States suspend or lift any unilateral coercive measures that had a detrimental effect on human rights, and which were aggravating humanitarian needs. Sanctions that threatened people"s lives and health needed to be halted. There must be a widening of the scope of humanitarian exemptions, and work to streamline the exemption process, including by extending renewable and standing exemptions for humanitarian programmes and goods. Sanctioning States also had a responsibility to address over-compliance directly, so that all exemptions were available and effective in practice. The High Commissioner said any imposition of sanctions must be fully compliant with international law – including in fairness of process, and availability of effective review and remedy. The implementation of any coercive measures must be regularly reviewed and reassessed for their practical impacts on human rights. They needed to be subject to appropriate human rights safeguards, including human rights impact assessments and independent monitoring, and limited in time; a 65 year-long embargo against an entire country clearly raised serious concerns in this respect. Alena Douhan, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, said her country visits, thematic work and information received from sources clearly indicated the detrimental impact of unilateral sanctions and over-compliance with them on the achievement of all and every single Sustainable Development Goal. Expanding unilateral sanctions combined with severe penalties for non-compliance, exacerbated over-compliance leading to a complete disengagement with countries targeted by such measures, thus excluding whole populations from development. All those in vulnerable situations were disproportionately affected. Ms. Douhan believed that the impact of unilateral sanctions should not be ignored when discussing the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, alongside other challenges. Mihir Kanade, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures specifically on the right to development was clear and tangible: they constituted a major obstacle to the realisation of the right to development and to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The draft legally binding instrument on the right to development acknowledged that unilateral coercive measures constituted a major obstacle to the realisation of the right to development. States must institute systems for guidance and clarification to corporations and banks, including in impact assessments and due diligence. Elena Gentili, Country Director in Cuba, Oxfam, said Oxfam in Cuba had witnessed the impact of unilateral coercive measures on women and girls, and how it negatively affected their livelihoods and perpetuated gender inequalities in the private and public spheres. In their humanitarian work in Cuba, Oxfam had witnessed how the sanctions curtailed access to needed inputs, medicines, basic food and hygiene products, technologies, and materials to rebuild. Ending the harmful and unjust United States policy toward Cuba would directly benefit all individuals, increase economic opportunities, multiply the possibilities for participatory citizenship, and foster a constructive dialogue. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, said the discussion was overwhelmingly about one country that imposed sanctions: the United States. The sanctions regimes imposed by the United States were especially dangerous as there was essentially no domestic, political or legal oversight of these sanctions - they were done by the stroke of the pen of the President of the United States. The use of this tool was highly damaging and highly inappropriate, and he hoped that this kind of violation of the United Nations Charter could be brought to an end. Amir Saed Vakil, Assistant Professor at the University of Tehran, said sanctions contrary to international law and the United Nations Charter were the gravest contemporary demonstration that unilateral coercive measures may have economic, political, and humanitarian impact, or any combination thereof. The international community had an obligation to create international conditions that allowed developing countries to achieve their national goals, including the realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights. States should refrain from unilateral economic, financial or trade measures that impeded the full achievement of the right to development. In the discussion, speakers among other things, commended the efforts of the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures to analyse the adverse impacts of these measures on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, and the realisation of the right to development. One speaker stressed that the Human Rights Council was not the appropriate forum to address the issue of autonomous sanctions. Many speakers said they categorically rejected the application of unilateral coercive measures as an instrument of pressure on sovereign States. Speakers emphasised that unilateral coercive measures were one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development. While the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was at midpoint, its implementation was in real danger. This was due to numerous reasons, but the impact of illegal unilateral coercive measures on the targeted countries was undeniable. The Council then concluded the interactive dialogue with Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, which began yesterday. In closing remarks, Fabian Salvioli, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, said victims needed to participate at all stages, from the very design of transitional justice processes. Impunity was illegitimate under international law and would not resolve underlying problems. States needed to prosecute the most serious violations of human rights with no exceptions. Mr. Salvioli hoped that during his work, he had faithfully and in a dignified manner represented the voices of victims, and ensured their rights were upheld. In the discussion, some speakers said to prevent the recurrence of crises and ensure social cohesion, ownership and inclusiveness, it must be recognised that in order to end impunity and ensure accountability, both transitional justice and reconciliation were critical for nation-building and development. Transitional justice mechanisms could be used to transition from conflict to a peaceful country, along with ensuring accountability against State practices that violated human rights. Overcoming obstacles, promoting democracy and fostering an environment that was tolerant and respectful of diversity was important in righting the wrongs of the past, and avoiding the recurrence of serious crimes and violations. Speaking in the discussion on unilateral coercive measures were Syria on behalf of a group of countries, Azerbaijan on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Venezuela on behalf of a group of countries, European Union, Iran, Armenia, Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Venezuela, Cuba, Belarus, China, Algeria, Egypt, Malaysia, Gambia, Bolivia and South Africa. Also speaking were Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, Medical Support Association for Underprivileged Iranian Patients, Bachehaye Asemane Kamran Rehabilitation Institute, Association of Iranian Short Statured Adults, and Legal Analysis and Research Public Union. Speaking in the discussion on truth, justice, reparation and non-recurrence were Russian Federation, South Africa, Timor-Leste, Maldives, Peru, Cameroon, Pakistan, El Salvador, Nepal, Morocco, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Togo, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Spain, Ireland, Gambia, Montenegro, Greece, India, Bolivia, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Albania, Marshall Islands, Botswana, Poland and Iceland on behalf of a group of countries. Also speaking were Burundi Commission Nationale Indépendante des Droits de l’Homme, Colombian Commission of Jurists, International Commission of Jurists, MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society, Institute for Reporters" Freedom and Safety, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, Every Casualty Worldwide, Conectas Direitos Humanos, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, and Geledés - Instituto da Mulher Negra. The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-fourth regular session can be found here. The Council will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon to hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. Biennial Panel Discussion on Unilateral Coercive Measures and Human Rights The theme of the biennial panel discussion is the impact of unilateral coercive measures and over-compliance on the right to development and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Opening Statements VOLKER TÜRK, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said unilateral coercive measures -- imposed outside the framework of the Security Council, under the United Nations Charter -- could impact on the enjoyment of human rights, including the right to development. In a number of cases, exemptions had been made to sanctions regimes to authorise the passage of essential goods. Yet in practice, over-compliance by banks, insurance companies, financial institutions and businesses – whether located in the sanctioning State, or based elsewhere – could impede financial transfers to humanitarian actors and the delivery of essential items, jeopardising legitimate and essential activities. There was a need for effective, clear and universally respected systems for humanitarian exemptions from sanctions to enable the swift, smooth passage of medication, healthcare equipment, food, humanitarian aid, and other assistance to critical infrastructure and services, such as water, sanitation and electricity. The High Commissioner said that by their purpose, sectoral sanctions created significant economic disruption. Such impact could also extend, however, to the distribution of basic goods to populations in need. As the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights had pointed out, sanctions could extensively undermine the enjoyment of human rights. This was disproportionately true for the rights of people living in poverty, and people in situations of vulnerability, including children. In these ways, sectoral sanctions could also impact progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, while pushing up unemployment and inflation, and putting pressure on tax receipts. Put simply, giving effect to the right to development was central to realising the equal enjoyment, by people everywhere, of the full range of their human rights. In response to human rights violations of particular severity, there could be an appropriate place for tailored measures against individuals who were credibly identified as responsible for those violations – as part of a wider range of accountability measures. Any imposition of sanctions must be fully compliant with international law – including in fairness of process, and availability of effective review and remedy. The implementation of any coercive measures must be regularly reviewed and reassessed for their practical impacts on human rights. They needed to be subject to appropriate human rights safeguards, including human rights impact assessments and independent monitoring, and limited in time; a 65 year-long embargo against an entire country clearly raised serious concerns in this respect. The High Commissioner said his Office had repeatedly recommended that Member States suspend or lift any unilateral coercive measures that had a detrimental effect on human rights, and which were aggravating humanitarian needs. Sanctions that threatened people"s lives and health need to be halted. There must be a widening of the scope of humanitarian exemptions, and work to streamline the exemption process, including by extending renewable and standing exemptions for humanitarian programmes and goods. Sanctioning States also had a responsibility to address over-compliance directly, so that all exemptions were available and effective in practice. ALENA DOUHAN, Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, said the panel was even more important in anticipation of the Sustainable Development Goal Summit, which would take place in New York next week. She noted with regret that neither the agenda of the High-level Political Forum nor that of the Sustainable Development Goal Summit included an assessment of the challenges caused by the use of unilateral sanctions. Her country visits, thematic work and information received from sources on a daily basis clearly indicated the detrimental impact of unilateral sanctions and over-compliance with them on the achievement of all and every single Sustainable Development Goal. Numerous reports highlighted the challenges in acquiring authorisations and licences for the procurement and delivery of essential goods, but also the impossibility to process payments for such goods. Additional problems referred to the challenges to procure and deliver seeds, fertilisers, livestock vaccines, agricultural machinery and equipment to process and store food. Similar patterns were observed regarding access to adequate healthcare, including medicines, vaccines and medical equipment, as well as access to medical information and opportunities for training of medical professionals. These elements also minimised the positive momentum around the ongoing global process towards an international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Adverse effects of unilateral sanctions could emanate from narrow interpretations of humanitarian carve-outs, which excluded development interventions in countries under sanctions. These could include critical infrastructure development and maintenance, which directly impacted multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Ms. Douhan said expanding unilateral sanctions, combined with severing penalties for non-compliance, exacerbated over-compliance, leading to a complete disengagement with countries targeted by such measures, thus excluding whole populations from development. This intensified inequalities at the global level, discriminating against people of countries under sanctions. All those in vulnerable situations were disproportionately affected. People affected also faced serious challenges to access justice to protect their rights. Economic, financial and sectoral sanctions and additional over-compliance isolated countries under sanctions and their populations, affecting poverty rates, and putting a strain on national social protection systems, decent work and economic growth. All of these elements impacted the achievement of multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Ms. Douhan said she believed that the impact of unilateral sanctions should not be ignored when discussing the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, alongside other challenges. Assessment of the impact of unilateral sanctions needed to be done by all relevant United Nations entities and other international organizations, within the scope of their mandates, and people from the countries under sanctions should not be discriminated and deprived of their right to benefit from economic, social, cultural and political development. She welcomed the panel discussion on the impact of unilateral sanctions and over-compliance on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. Statements by the Panellists MIHIR KANADE, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said unilateral coercive measures on their own generally violated international law, particularly the Charter of the United Nations. Unilateral coercive measures also generally violated the right of peoples to self-determination, including self-determined development, and had debilitating impacts on numerous human rights of individuals and peoples in the sanctioned country. The adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures specifically on the right to development was clear and tangible: they constituted a major obstacle to the realisation of the right to development and to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The right to development, as an inalienable human right of every human person and all peoples, entitled them to three things: the right to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development. Unilateral coercive measures fundamentally violated these basic entitlements, precisely because they were coercive measures that immediately obliterated the possibility of human beings and peoples in the targeted countries to self-determine their development priorities; actively, freely and meaningfully participate in their own development; contribute to the process; and to enjoy the fruits thereof. The draft legally binding instrument on the right to development acknowledged that unilateral coercive measures constituted a major obstacle to the realisation of the right to development. Increasingly, the practice of unilateral coercive measures had been accompanied with secondary sanctions and over-compliance, which worsened the adverse impact on human rights, including the right to development, especially affecting access to essential goods and services, including humanitarian assistance. States must institute systems for guidance and clarification to corporations and banks, including in impact assessments and due diligence. ELENA GENTILI, Country Director in Cuba, Oxfam, said since 1993, Oxfam had been in Cuba working with local non-governmental organizations and institutions to build a more just, inclusive, sustainable and resilient society, promoting citizen participation, gender equality and women"s rights. The organization’s experience on the ground provided them with a first-hand understanding of the devastating effects and human impact of the longest system of unilateral coercive ever imposed on a country, which was a serious obstacle to the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, especially for women and girls, including diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Oxfam in Cuba had witnessed the impact of unilateral coercive measures on women and girls, and how it negatively affected their livelihoods and perpetuated gender inequalities in the private and public spheres. Seventy-eight per cent of women and girls living in Cuba were born under the pressure of the sanctions of the United States. Due to traditional roles, it was the women who carried the greatest weight in the management of the household. In the public health system alone, women accounted for 71 per cent of healthcare professionals. By causing large-scale shortages, the sanctions reinforced gender inequalities and turned a blind eye to women’s specific needs, opportunities and autonomy. Cuba was currently experiencing an unprecedented multi-dimensional crisis. The sanctions were deepening the crisis and, in an increasingly digital age, further restricted private entrepreneurs and people’s access to digital platforms and resources. In their humanitarian work in Cuba, Oxfam had witnessed how the sanctions curtailed access to needed inputs, medicines, basic food and hygiene products, technologies, and materials to rebuild. Although humanitarian assistance was exempted from the United States sanctions, the enforcement of the sanctions still impeded aid. Ending the harmful and unjust United States policy toward Cuba would directly benefit all individuals, increase economic opportunities, multiply the possibilities for participatory citizenship, and foster a constructive dialogue. The international community was encouraged to advocate for the normalisation of the United States-Cuba relations and the removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Member States, international aid agencies and civil society organizations were called on to be more proactive in opposing the sanctions against Cuba and in highlighting the harm these sanctions caused. It was a moral duty to humanity, to promote the right to development and the enjoyment of human rights for all Cuban people. JEFFREY D. SACHS, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, said this was an important and timely meeting: next week the entire world was to come together to promote the Sustainable Development Goals, and unilateral coercive measures were enormously, directly and intentionally adverse to their achievement. They were also against international law in an absolutely fundamental way. Next week there would also be a review of the commitment to universal health coverage, and unilateral coercive measures had been shown time and again to do special damage to the health and survival of the vulnerable in sanctioned countries. This session was about the consequences of actions taken by a few States that had profoundly detrimental consequences for the world. This was not really about the question of over-compliance, although this was of course an issue; sanctions were designed to harm national economies, indeed, to destabilise them, and in many cases to force a change of political regime. The fundamental aim of the sanctions was a massive disruption to social and economic life, which was bound to have catastrophic consequences, in particular for the poorest and most vulnerable. The discussion was overwhelmingly about one country that imposed sanctions: the United States. To impose sanctions was only within the capacity of a few countries, which had the ability to shape international trade. Most countries had no capacity to impose meaningful sanctions on other countries. The United States stood at the centre of the international financial system. To a lesser extent, the European Union was the only other that had the capacity to apply meaningful sanctions. However, the United States applied targeted measures against roughly a quarter of the world, and could thus end this abusive policy by reflecting on its illegality and the damage that it caused to other countries. The sanctions regimes imposed by the United States were especially dangerous as there was essentially no domestic, political or legal oversight of these sanctions - they were done by the stroke of the pen of the President of the United States. There was no global legal review or court of appeal, making them highly dangerous. The use of this tool was highly damaging and highly inappropriate, and Mr. Sachs hoped that this kind of violation of the United Nations Charter could be brought to an end. AMIR SAED VAKIL, Assistant Professor at the University of Tehran, said Professor Douhan’s 2021 report clarified that sanctions contrary to international law and the United Nations Charter were the gravest contemporary demonstration that unilateral coercive measures may have economic, political, or humanitarian impact, or any combination thereof. These impacts would be more overwhelming when the sanctions had been sustained over prolonged periods. Development was defined as a process entailing a realisation of all human rights, which aimed at constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals, on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom. The real value of the right to development lay in its external dimension, namely the fact that it stressed States’ international or collective responsibilities. Thus, the international community had an obligation to create international conditions that allowed developing countries to achieve their national goals, including the realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights. Undoubtedly, unilateral coercive measures intercepted the way. States should refrain from unilateral economic, financial or trade measures that impeded the full achievement of the right to development. The widespread practice and the long history of providing aid demonstrated evidence of the acceptance by developed countries of this new responsibility. The profound impacts of unilateral sanctions on the realisation of the third generation of human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals were undeniable. Furthermore, the negative effects of unilateral coercive measures were not limited to the targeted country alone. They had a ripple effect on neighbouring countries and the international community as a whole. Additionally, the imposition of sanctions could exacerbate existing conflicts and tensions. The United Nations Secretary-General should be mandated to submit a global report annually to give a complete picture about the impacts of sanctions. Discussion Some speakers commended the efforts of the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures to analyse the adverse impacts of these measures on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, and the realisation of the right to development. They expressed appreciation to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to the Special Rapporteur for organising the biennial panel. The discussion being held today would further contribute to a better understanding of the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly on the right to development and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. One speaker stressed that the Human Rights Council was not the appropriate forum to address the issue of autonomous sanctions. Sanctions were imposed specifically on individuals and entities responsible for serious breaches of international law and human rights violations, and were intended to bring about a change in policy or activity. Many speakers said they categorically rejected the application of unilateral coercive measures as an instrument of pressure on sovereign States. Such politically motivated actions violated fundamental human rights and freedoms, and universally recognised norms of international law, and undermined the efforts of States to resolve crisis situations. These unilateral coercive measures had been repeatedly condemned by the Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly. World practice had shown that the use of unilateral coercive measures to achieve opportunistic political goals was an ineffective way. It was much more productive to solve existing problems through political and diplomatic efforts, within the framework of a de-politicised and mutually respectful dialogue with strict observance of international law. The imposition of unilateral coercive measures continued to leave countries behind. A number of speakers emphasised that unilateral coercive measures were one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development. While the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was at midpoint, its implementation was in real danger. This was due to numerous reasons, but the impact of illegal unilateral coercive measures on the targeted countries was undeniable. Some speakers said the illegal measures, which weaponised essential goods as a means for political coercion, and the related over-compliance and secondary sanctions, impacted the full enjoyment of the human rights of more than a third of humanity. These sanctions prevented and hindered access to food, medicines, financial services, education, technological advances and energy sources. Developing countries were the hardest hit by the unilateral coercive measures imposed by some Western countries. The dire situation of the persons negatively affected by unilateral coercive measures and who should be protected by the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular women, children, persons with disabilities, refugees and internally displaced persons, was of particular concern. Several speakers strongly urged States to refrain from applying and to lift any unilateral economic, financial or trade coercive measures that impeded the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly, in developing countries. It was important to strengthen international cooperation to address the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The Council should address the issue of unilateral coercive measures as a priority. It was important to resume efforts to reach a United Nations declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of all human rights, including the right to development. Refraining from adopting, maintaining, implementing, recognising and complying with unilateral coercive measures lay at the heart of efforts to uphold all human rights and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Concluding Remarks MIHIR KANADE, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said empirically, unilateral coercive measures had hardly ever been successful in achieving their aim. One of the reasons for the Second World War was the “beggar thy neighbour” policy adopted by States, which had led to the collapse of the global system. Today it was a much more interconnected world, and secondary sanctions could entirely disrupt the global supply chain. Unilateral coercive measures directly undermined multilateralism. The legality of targeted sanctions was debatable, but there was no dispute on sectoral sanctions. Targeted sanctions were by design adopted without any due process, and had direct impacts on individuals who were not the target of targeted sanctions. It was not enough for targeted sanctions to claim to comply with international human rights and humanitarian law - there needed to be systems in place to make sure that this was indeed the case, and these systems were lacking. Targeted systems were not necessarily developed with human rights in mind, nor were they assessed to avoid over-compliance. They thus needed to be addressed from a different lens in terms of their human rights impact. ELENA GENTILI, Country Director in Cuba, Oxfam, said in emergency situations, in order to respond to them, all efforts of the country to protect and restore the livelihoods of the most vulnerable must be supported, and in order to do so, companies must be found that were willing to work in the country. Otherwise, the ability to respond to emergencies in a prompt manner was affected, and the most vulnerable were affected in a very differentiated way. It was important to highlight how these persons were most affected by the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures. States and stakeholders should be encouraged to skip the use of unilateral coercive measures. All should raise their voice to this end and show evidence on the human impact of these measures, finding mechanisms to hold countries and stakeholders accountable on the application of these measures. All should challenge the use of these unilateral coercive measures in the name of respecting and protecting human rights. JEFFREY D. SACHS, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, responding to the statement made by the European Union, said the eloquent testimonies from all over the world demonstrated that the Human Rights Council was an appropriate venue for this discussion, as unilateral coercive measures impacted human rights all over the world, including the right to development. This was an urgent issue which violated the right to peace and development. These sanctions aimed to undermine the political, economic and social stability of countries. They were coercive measures, to coerce countries into a geopolitical response; they did grave damage. It was hoped that the European Union would suggest an appropriate venue for this discussion, so the grave practice could be ended. AMIR SAED VAKIL, Assistant Professor at the University of Tehran, said in practise, smart sanctions were the most dominant facet of unilateral coercive measures, and were misused to justify these illegal restrictive measures. He hoped that this would end. Normative terms of international law and mechanisms of the United Nations system were too shy to monitor, prevent and penalise boycotters. The right to development had transnational application and required transnational enforcement. It was vital to have a monitoring body which could receive collective complaints. Much could be learnt from the United Nations framework on climate change, which provided information in the field of mitigating the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. The Secretary-General needed to be more active to play a constructive role between sanctioned countries and those that imposed the sanctions. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence The interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here. Intermediary Remarks by the Special Rapporteur FABIAN SALVIOLI, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, said he remained fully committed to supporting the countries he had visited and assisting in the implementation of the recommendations. All victims had the right to receive reparations irrespective of the status of each victim. Various delegations had raised concerns about impunity. The United Nations report on prosecuting violations of human rights was one that delegations might find helpful. It was important to recall that legal systems bore an obligation to implementing human rights standards. When mechanisms failed, there needed to be a smooth recourse to international human rights mechanisms. There could be no statute of limitations applied to the most serious violations of human rights. Some countries had raised issues on the gender perspective, which had been cross-cutting throughout the thematic report. Mr. Salvioli conveyed gratitude to the many countries which considered that the right to memory should be the fifth pillar of the mandate. The best way to do this was to ensure the focus was on the memory of the victim, rather than things which should not be commemorated or celebrated. Follow-up was a vital component of truth, justice and reparation, Discussion Some speakers said that in order to prevent the recurrence of crises and ensure social cohesion, ownership and inclusiveness, it must be recognised that, to end impunity and ensure accountability, both transitional justice and reconciliation were critical for nation-building and development. The design and implementation of transitional justice processes must take into account the five pillars reviewed in the report, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and the painful effects these had on victims. A number of speakers said transitional justice mechanisms could be used to transition from conflict to a peaceful country, along with ensuring accountability against State practices that violated human rights. Overcoming obstacles, promoting democracy and fostering an environment that was tolerant and respectful of diversity was important in righting the wrongs of the past, and avoiding the recurrence of serious crimes and violations. There should be training programmes on transitional justice, including the gender perspectives. It was important to include the voices of all, including victims, in all phases of the transitional process, and to carry out effective, independent and impartial investigations in line with due process. Whenever there were allegations of human rights violations, they must be investigated to establish truth and ensure accountability and reparations for victims. Some States, as the Special Rapporteur said, used their institutional powers to cover human rights violations and in some cases there was de facto impunity for the perpetrators of such grave violations of human rights. The recurrence of grave human rights violations could only be precluded by instituting effective, independent and impartial accountability processes that tore down various layers of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. States had a duty to ensure that these perpetrators were tried effectively under the law. Regrettably, impunity for these criminals reigned supreme in many situations of armed conflicts. The most glaring example of continued impunity resulting in repeated massive violations of human rights and systematic oppression was evident, a speaker said, among the illegal occupiers of United Nations Security Council-recognised disputed territories. In these territories, the absence of accountability had resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, and systematic violation of their dignity and rights that was enabled by oppressive laws which deeply entrenched impunity. Further, a number of the statements and recommendations of the report appeared contentious, a speaker said. States must actively combat discriminatory speech and ensure that those culpable were held accountable: the Second World War showed the consequences of hate speech, but this lesson had not, the speaker said, been learned by the countries of the West, in a flagrant dereliction of their human rights duties. There was a need to take into account the different national specificities and legislations when installing mechanisms of transitional justice, another speaker said, pointing to the various negative elements linked to the current undemocratic and unequal international order. The transitional justice process must be flexible and account for context, a third speaker said. Among questions raised was: how could States undergoing transitional justice processes better ensure more inclusive, non-discriminatory participation of victims, as well as civilian oversight of relevant public institutions, complemented by civil society mobilisation, for a just society; what good practices existed that took into account the gender perspective in transitional justice programmes; how to best integrate transitional justice mechanisms in the efforts to uphold and preserve memory; and, in the context of an authoritarian form of rule and serious human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law, how could victims access truth, justice, and reparation? Several speakers also paid tribute to the work done by the Special Rapporteur during his six-year mandate. Concluding Remarks FABIAN SALVIOLI, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, said several interventions had spoken about the need to ensure victim participation. Victims needed to participate at all stages, from the very design of transitional justice processes. Impunity was illegitimate under international law and would not resolve underlying problems. States needed to prosecute the most serious violations of human rights with no exceptions. Many States had referred to measures they implemented and concerns they harboured at measures implemented by other States. Technical assistance was important and would be provided by the Special Rapporteur and his team; States could engage with him on this. Mr. Salvioli said this was his last report and presentation before the Council. The last six years had seen arduous work undertaken and he had not carried it out alone. He thanked all members of the Secretariat and all Member States who had assisted in his work. Mr. Salvioli hoped that during his work, he had faithfully and in a dignified manner represented the voices of victims, and ensured their rights were upheld. Link: https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2023/09/le-conseil-des-droits-de-lhomme-se-penche-sur-limpact-quont-sur