The UN Commission on human rights “calls upon all States to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders, and to ensure and maintain an environment conducive to the work of human rights defenders” in a resolution adopted during its last session in April 2005.

Download the resolution
 
The draft resolution, principally sponsored by Norway, was aimed at retaining a stronger language than the General Assembly (GA) resolution on human rights defenders (HRDs).

According to the Human Rights Defenders Office in Geneva, Cuba made a series of efforts during the negations to delete in the draft resolution the phrase ´and their relatives´, arguing that the UN Declaration on HRDs was specifically addressing the situation of HRDs not their relatives, neighbours or friends. Norway and all sponsors rejected this move by Cuba. The sponsors argued that this reflects the trend as stated in the report by Hina Jilani, UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders.

The inclusion of UN Country Teams was also challenged by Pakistan, arguing
that UN Country Teams should focus on development project and activities. However, the sense of the draft resolution was retained, reflecting the GA
language.

The inclusion of the role of HRDs in conflict resolution and peace building was challenged but the sense of the draft was retained.

The USA asked for a change from´welcoming the Special Representative´s report´ to ´take note of´, but this was rejected since it was also GA language.

The EU proposed the inclusion of human rights education, going beyond just raising awareness of the UN Declaration on HRDs. This was not retained in the draft.

The EU again proposed to add the role of women HRDs, putting in to context the
Beijing Declaration and Plan of Action. This was not retained. However it was important to have in the resolution the inclusion on the preambular paragraph words indicating ´´the serious nature of the risks faced by human rights defenders including during periods of special vulnerability, and including the severe consequences for women human rights defenders and defenders of rights of persons belonging to minorities´´.

NGOs tried as much as possible to have some wording on sexual orientation´
but Norway was not ready to take it any further at this stage.

The debate on whether to say ´´registration´´ as in the GA resolution or ´´acquisition of legal status´´ as in the draft was very lengthy and difficult. Switzerland argued that ´´registration´´ may not be accurate instances in certain countries and to refer to diversity of requirements, ´´acquisition of legal status´´was preferred. The EU also argued that the UN Commission has a role to develop the language and to make a little bit of progress so that GA will pick it up in September instead of keeping their own language.

Cuba proposed an amendment to reflect responsibilities of HRDs arguing that HRDs also have responsibilities as stated in the Declaration. It was basically an attempt to reproduce art.3 of the Declaration, stating that the juridical framework for all action by HRDs should be based on domestic law. Sponsors insisted that this amendment signals that the Commission is aiming at ristricting the rights of HRDS. Norway was not prepared to accept it and it went for a vote, Cuba losing (20-27-6).

This sends a big signal to all concerned since this resolution was a consensus resolution and the fact that 20 states supported Cuba´amendment  means a lot of work needs to be done next year. Cuba abstained from calling for a vote on the
resolution itself ´´out of respect for the mandate holder, Hina Jilani´´.