The Third Committee’s dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism, Mr Martin Scheinin, was held on 26 October and was one of the most anticipated this session. This was due to the fact his report to General Assembly focussed on how counter-terrorism responses impact not only women, but men, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons. Reminding States that his mandate from the Human Rights Council (the Council) required him to ‘integrate a gender perspective’ in his work, the Special Rapporteur understated the situation when he commented that his report had ‘exceeded many expectations by taking the issue of gender beyond focusing on merely the human rights of women.’ Nonetheless, he came prepared to defend his right as an independent expert to interpret his mandate as he saw fit, and to call upon all States and relevant UN agencies to take up his recommendations.
Although some States condemned the report and accused the Special Rapporteur of exceeding his mandate, most sought to defend both his independent status and the substance of his report. Tanzania (on behalf of the African Group), Malaysia (on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference), the Sudan (on behalf of the Arab Group) and St. Lucia fell into the first category. They each delivered statements accusing the Special Rapporteur of multiple breaches of the Code of Conduct for special procedures of the Council; trying to introduce the ‘controversial notions’ of gender identity and sexual orientation; overstepping his mandate by reinterpreting internationally accepted definitions of gender; and failing to use credible sources of information as the basis for the report and its recommendations. The African Group went a step further, refusing to engage with the report, but like its fellow objectors, it reiterated its in principle support for the work of the special procedures, provided they operated within the scope of their mandates.
The fact that several groups of States have rejected the Special Rapporteur’s report will adversely impact on Mexico’s annual resolution on counter-terrorism.
It is standard practice for the resolution to ‘take note’ of the report ‘with appreciation’, and to incorporate some of the key recommendations. However it is unlikely that any of the recommendations will be taken up this year, and there is even doubt as to whether it will be possible to retain a reference to the Special Rapporteur and his work. The loss of this latter reference would be a regrettable outcome and signal a vote of no confidence in the mandate holder by the General Assembly.
More encouraging was the fact that the majority of States that spoke during the interactive dialogue used the opportunity to defend the independence of the mandate holder (Canada, Mexico, Uruguay). Some went further, welcoming and in some cases expressing their full support for his report (Australia, Chile, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden (on behalf of the EU), UK), while others limited their remarks to the need to protect the human rights of all individuals in the context of counter-terrorism responses (Argentina, Cuba, Holy See). Defending the independence of the Special Rapporteur, Switzerland criticised those States that ‘attacked’ the Special Rapporteur simply because they disagreed with his interpretation of his mandate and reminded the Committee that there was an appropriate monitoring process in place at the Council where such complaints should be directed.
The US’s position was ambiguous, given that on the one hand it appreciated the fact the Special Rapporteur had ‘shed light’ on how counter-terrorism responses affected women and LGBTI individuals, but it went on to ‘respectfully disagree’ with his broad interpretation of gender and expressed concern that serious issues raised in the report were being overlooked as a result. India was more direct in its criticism, describing the report as an ‘academic exercise’ that sought to redefine gender and in so doing, deprived the Committee of the opportunity for a meaningful discussion about how women’s rights were impacted by counter-terrorism responses. India also brought into question the information sources that Special Rapporteur had used to develop his recommendations. Although some States asked constructive questions about the application of some of the recommendations (Australia, Sweden, Finland) the Third Committee did not hold a substantive discussion on the issues raised in the report.
|
