United Nations press release
UNITED NATIONS
Press Release
---
---
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ADDRESS
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS ON SITUATION
IN BRAZIL, AUSTRALIA AND
CAMBODIA
xxxxxxxxxx
Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights
AFTERNOON
4 May 2009
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon
heard statements from a series of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) on the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in
Brazil, Australia and Cambodia.
In advance of the Committee's review of the periodic reports of these
three countries, NGO representatives spoke about, among others, the
impact of violence, which impeded the enjoyment of economic, social
and cultural rights, due to the criminalisation of poverty; the use of
genetically-modified organisms; the particular discrimination suffered
by women and children due to their gender and age; the situation of
Aboriginal peoples in Australia; and the need to ensure food security.
The lack of progress in improving the situation of economic, social
and cultural rights for the poorest in Brazil and for the Aboriginal
peoples in Australia over the last years was also highlighted by
several speakers.
The representatives of the following NGOs took the floor:
International Disability Alliance, Center for Reproductive Rights,
O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Organisation
Mondiale Contre la Torture, Justiça Global, National Movement of
Street Boys and Girls, Via Campesina Brazil, National Movement for
Human Rights, Platforme d'Esca, Parceiros Misereros do Brasil,
Misereor, Human Rights Law Resource Centre, National Association of
Community Legal Centres and Kingsford Legal Centre, Foundation for
Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, 3D and Centre for Housing
Rights and Evictions.
During the present session, the Committee will also consider the
reports of Cyprus and the United Kingdom, but no NGO representatives
were present to speak about those countries.
The next meeting of the Committee will be at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 5
May, when it will consider the fourth periodic report of Australia
(E/C.12/AUS/4). It is scheduled to consider the report of Australia
for the next three meetings, concluding on Wednesday 6 May at 1 p.m.
General Statements
STEFAN TROMEL, of International Disability Alliance, said with regards
to Draft General Comment 20 which the Committee was preparing, that
the new Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had
recently come into force. There had not yet been an opportunity for
the Committee against Torture to consult with the new Committee on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Committee against Torture
should ensure that the new General Comment was fully in line with the
new Convention, in particular with regards to denial of appropriate
accommodation for those with disabilities as a form of discrimination,
which should be stressed in a more general way in the Comment. He
offered two proposals which could improve paragraph 24 of the General
Comment. Paragraph 29, which referred to health status, was hugely
problematic, and instead of protecting those with a different health
status, it opened the door to discrimination for example against those
with mental health problems. The current draft did not address the
issue appropriately. The Committee should review the wording of the
draft General Comment.
EIBE RIEDEL, Committee Expert, responding to these comments, said that
since last July there had been changes to the text of the draft
General Comment, and all points raised, in particular reasonable
education, had been discussed. On cooperation with the Committee on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, this was important, and the
Committee would be looking into this as soon as possible, not least to
ensure uniformity of approach.
Brazil
Ximena Andion, Center for Reproductive Rights, said on the situation
of women's health in Brazil, particularly maternal health, Brazil had
a high level of deaths in child birth, considerably higher than those
in countries of lesser levels of development. The rates of maternal
mortality had not decreased in the last 15 years, and were based with
remarkable disparities on race, social status and economic situation.
The situation reflected the failure of the Government to prioritise
maternal health, and that interventions had been ineffective. The
healthcare budget ignored disadvantaged sectors of the population. The
Committee should ask the Government to take effective measures to
combat maternal deaths, and should include the recommendation to
prioritise and take measures to reduce the high levels of maternity
deaths therein, and recommend that it eliminate the significant
disparities and discriminations faced by Afro-Caribbean and low-income
women in this regard.
OSCAR CABRERA, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law of
Georgetown University, said there was a connection between
tobacco-control policies and health in Brazil. There was a specific
situation of tobacco-control in relation to the right to health - the
Government had implemented some policies, but was not fully complying
with its duty to respect and promote the right to health. Serious
failures to protect public health from tobacco continued. The
Government, through its National Institute of Cancer, attributed seven
deaths each day to passive or second-hand smoking. The Government had
not met the requirement of ensuring that public indoor areas were
smoke-free, posing serious health risk to customers and employees,
amounting to a violation of the right to health. Closed environments
should be 100 per cent free of tobacco smoke. The Committee should
take this into account when drafting recommendations to the Brazilian
Government.
TAMARA MOREIRA VAZ DE MELO, Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture,
Justiça Global, National Movement of Street Boys and Girls, said based
on the conviction that torture and other forms of cruel and inhuman
treatment were often caused by disrespect for economic, social and
cultural rights, it was shown that the impact of violence impeded the
enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, due to the
criminalisation of poverty. The latter term referred to a clear and
observable phenomenon, with the poorest elements of Brazilian society
targeted by the Government and its agencies, prioritising armed
confrontation over community dialogue, with the poorest facing the
prospect of daily violence at the hands of the police, who were
responsible for one out of every five killings in the country. The
poor were also faced with violence at the hands of militias, prison
guards, fire-fighters and others. Brazil's current system was a
fundamental link in perpetuating the link between poverty and
violence, such as riots. There were serious problems linked to
insufficient nutrition, inadequate access to justice, and lack of
educational and work activities. Women and children in poor and
marginalised communities were exposed to specific forms of violence
due to their gender and age. The police often focused on crimes by
children, rather than crimes against children. Many impediments were
placed before human rights defenders in Brazil, stopping them from
carrying out their task. It was impossible to promote the economic,
social and cultural rights of Brazil's poorest citizens without facing
up to the violence that was a daily element of their lives, and the
Government had failed to do this. The Committee should urge the
Government to take this into consideration.
ANTONIO ANDRIOLI, Via Campesina Brazil, said with regards to the
consequences of world development based on the use of
genetically-modified organisms, that their use had caused an
exponential rise in health problems. Natural resources could no longer
be used by small farmers, and this was a dramatic violation of the
economic, social and cultural rights and indeed human rights of the
population of Brazil. In recent years, Brazil had seen economic
growth, but the rural economy had shrunk. Genetically-modified soya
had had negative consequences for rural farmers, with an increase in
poverty and exclusion. Farmers were increasingly dependent on
multinationals. The destruction of the livelihood of rural farmers,
the destruction of arable land, exodus towards the cities,
deforestation, these were just some of the consequences of the use of
genetically-modified organisms in Brazil. People had lost their right
to self-determination, and the situation could worsen, as the
Government was increasing the use of the organisms, with a view to
increasing profits. However, they destroyed natural resources and
decreased yields. Rural peoples found it harder to subsist from their
land. The situation threatened food security - a large proportion of
the population was hungry, and the Government was simply sitting and
waiting whilst resources were being threatened.
PAULO CESAR CARBONARI, National Movement for Human Rights, said the
conclusions of the Committee in 2003 had been emphatic that a major
problem in Brazil was inequality and social injustice, together with
the consequences of structural adjustment. So a few years later, there
was no reason to rejoice - inequality continued, with greater effects
of structural adjustment. There was great inequality in Brazil.
Inequality and unequal income distribution had continued, and there
was a decrease in purchasing power for workers. Basing development on
building large-scale projects did not build equality and justice.
Brazil had still not recognised the universality of economic, social
and cultural rights.
MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ, Platforme d'Esca, said the inequality
experienced by Blacks, women, homosexuals, the young, and poor people
was considerable - they were most likely to be the victims of
violence, including murder. Murder amongst the young had grown by 63
per cent over ten years. The possession of land by the indigenous was
not marked in land registers. In 2007, when considering the 10 per
cent poorest of the population, 67.9 per cent were Black - and of the
10 per cent richest, only 21.9 per cent were Black. In 2008, 31 per
cent of Brazilians were considered poor - and more than 41 per cent of
the Black population were living below the poverty line. Indigenous
people in all Brazilian regions were subject to daily persecution,
threats, murder, displacement and land grabbing, being confined to
tiny or road-side settlements.
JUREMA WERNECK, Parceiros Misereros do Brasil, said Brazil had
ratified the majority of international instruments, and civil society
hoped that it would ratify the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights over the coming
months. However, there was a huge gap with regards to implementation
of the provisions of these texts. The concluding remarks of the
Committee, for example, had not been translated nor circulated, and
this made it difficult to monitor their implementation, as well as
making them less effective. The Brazilian Institute for Human Rights
was not particularly effective, given that it was only targeted at the
complaints of violations and the implementation of programmes that
lacked grass-roots participation. Brazil had not yet made any real
headway in responding to institutional challenges ensuring that
conditions were in place to achieve human rights.
DANIEL RECH, Misereor, said there were regular elections to Government
and Parliament in Brazil - but there was Constitutional provision for
three other instruments for direct participation, none of which were
very heavily used. One of the main requests of civil society was to
ensure greater transparency and access to information related to
public bodies, in particular with regards to the State budget.
Brazilian civil society was trying to democratise its democracy. In
recent years, there had been insufficient action, and what had been
done had been done thanks to social mobilisation. There were more and
more cases of criminalisation of social leaders, with slander and
criminal action brought against them for a whole range of reasons. The
elite had devised new methods of repression, including police
violence. There was increasing use of a strategy to legalise
criminalisation of the poor and disadvantaged, and the situation of
human rights defenders who were subject to this was criminalised.
Public opinion still broadly upheld the views held during the military
dictatorship, that human rights defenders were the defenders of
delinquents or bandits. This issue had been tackled to a certain
extent, but insufficiently so.
Committee Experts then raised a number of questions and issues,
including, among other things, what were the reasons for the
ineffectiveness of the national mechanism for human rights, and
whether this was due to a lack of political will, of funding, or
another issue; what was the assessment of the impact of all programmes
to decrease the rate of poverty in Brazil since the State Party was
last before the Committee; to what was the Government's lax position
attributed; a request for specific figures on maternal mortality and
whether there were any comparative statistics on variations between
regions and income classes; and why was it that nothing positive had
been said about the Government of Brazil.
Responding to these questions and others, NGO representatives said,
among other things, that all the measures implemented had not done
enough to tackle inequality. There was a colossal effort being made,
but inequality remained and was very severe for certain specific
groups such as the Afro-Caribbean and women. The Government was trying
to make an effort and put in places policies to combat inequality, but
there were structural issues, such as the lack of sufficient urban
reform and of the urban housing question, which impeded progress.
Brazil had a very complex society, with participation and a
democratically-elected Government and democratic institutions, but
there was a whole host of situations which had occurred in recent
years, especially after the dictatorship, which had boiled down to a
series of expectations. There was a World Bank study of 2005 which
noted that Brazil's maternal mortality ratio ranged from three to ten
times that of countries of comparable socio-economic development. The
use of genetically-modified organisms was unconstitutional, as it did
not respect three basic rights of environmental law. Brazil exported
soya which it did not eat, and 70 per cent of food stuff in Brazil was
produced by small rural farmers, and there was a growing group of the
dispossessed among this class.
Australia
BEN SHOKMAN, Human Rights Law Resource Centre, said there had been
some very positive developments over the last reporting period, but
more remained to be done. The NGO document sought to raise additional
issues that were not covered in the list of issues, but they were
important issues that the Committee should take up with the Australian
delegation. It also contained some proposed recommendations that
should be included in the final observations of the Committee. This
was an important and timely review - about 18 months ago there was a
change in Federal Government, and the new Government had a much more
positive disposition towards human rights, and was moving to re-engage
with them at the national, international and domestic level. However,
Australia remained without any legal provisions, and there had been
primarily policy changes, rather than any legislative changes, and
this was of concern. There had been no legislative commitments to
provide for the equal protection and realisation of the economic,
social and cultural rights of the Aboriginal peoples. Australia
remained without comprehensive legal protection of human rights at the
national level. Covenant rights were not directly enforceable or
justiciable under Australian law. Equality was a serious issue, as
there were numerous permanent and arbitrary detention hoc exemptions
to anti-discrimination law, which allowed discrimination to occur
without justification, and the Committee should issue a specific
recommendation on comprehensive legislation to protect the right to
equality and address all grounds for discrimination.
ANNIE PETITT, National Association of Community Legal Centres and
Kingsford Legal Centre, said there were many areas in which there
remained limited substantive progress in the enjoyment of economic,
social and cultural rights for many Australians. There were major
concerns with regards to social security in Australia - payments were
inadequate and below the Henderson Poverty Line; the provision of
social security was conditional on meeting certain mutual obligation
requirements; and there was in some regions the introduction of a
regime of compulsory income quarantining measures. The absence of paid
parental leave and accessible and affordable childcare were
problematic. Australian law still prohibited formal recognition of
same-sex couples through marriage or civil unions. There were four
extremely important areas affecting the right to an adequate standard
of living: the extent of poverty, which remained a significant issue;
homelessness; people with disability, who had limited access to
appropriate housing; and the human rights impact of climate change.
There were also three important areas relating to the right to health:
mental health, which was significantly under-resourced; indigenous
health, as the indigenous continued to experience much higher levels
of ill-health, disease and death than non-indigenous Australians; and
prisoners' health, as the latter faced major health issues. There was
also a lack of adequate funding for early childhood education and at
all levels of education, and indigenous children and young people had
lower levels of access to education.
LES MALEZER, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action,
said the Durban Review Conference invited the treaty bodies to take
fully into account the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and
the outcome of the Review Conference. The report of Australia was
insufficient under the requirements of the treaty: it was manifestly
deficient in identifying and addressing the issues relating to the
Aboriginal people; was misleading in relation to the extent of
discrimination; failed to show any progress in the economic, social
and cultural rights of the Aboriginal people since Australia became a
State party; and failed to demonstrate adequate structural and
capacity development efforts by the State Party to protect and promote
the rights of the Aboriginal people. The report failed to provide
guarantees and commitments for protection of the rights of the
Aboriginal people of Australia. The situation of the Aboriginal people
was at a lower point than it was in 1983, 16 years ago, when Australia
first reported to the Committee.
Committee Experts then raised a number of questions and issues, noting
that the NGOs from Australia had provided an example of best practice,
providing fact sheets and keeping the work of the Committee focused;
had the NGOs actually been involved and participated in the drafting
of the report, and if so did the NGOs ask questions or try to resolve
any of the problems they had raised with the Committee; and whether
the Government recognised discrimination on four grounds alone.
Responding briefly to these questions, NGO speakers said the report
had been prepared by the previous Government, and had been adopted but
not changed by the new Government. During the previous Governments,
there had been very little interaction between NGOs and the
Government, and where interaction had taken place, no changes
suggested by NGOs had been included. However, this appeared to be
changing with the new Government, which was interacting to a much
greater extent with civil society. On equality, there were only four
pieces of anti-discrimination measures at the Federal level, and these
left wide protection gaps.
Cambodia
ZOE GOODMAN, 3D, said Cambodia was a country wracked by food
insecurity. The Committee should ask Cambodia to explain what measures
were in place to ensure that a policy of leasing large quantities of
land to produce food for export was compatible with its commitment to
ensure the progressive realisation of the right to food of every
person, including the poorest and most vulnerable, as well as what
measures were in place to provide affected populations with
alternative livelihood strategies that enabled them to fulfil their
right to adequate food. The Committee should ask Cambodia to describe
the steps it would take to assess the impact, particularly on
vulnerable groups, of the land deal that was currently being
negotiated with Kuwait, paying particular attention to the investment
bills recently adopted in the Cambodian Parliament, as well as to the
potential impact of the deal on the right to food.
DAVID PRED, Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions, said Cambodia
ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in 1992. The ratification, followed by the first democratic
elections, promised a new dawn of human rights. Since this time, many
Cambodians had prospered, but many had seen their economic, social and
cultural rights deteriorate. The absence of a rule of economic law and
a functioning judicial system had had a negative effect on those
living in the path of development. Cambodia was today a country for
sale - the ruling elite had enriched themselves by selling off the
natural resources of the country. More than one million hectares, or a
quarter of the total arable landmass had been granted to major
companies, and there were clear pretexts for clear-cutting. Cambodia
had lost 29 per cent of its primary tropical forest cover in just five
years, with devastating results on those who depended on the forest
for their survival. Even where the Government and concessionaires had
respected the legal and environmental framework, this had proved to be
insufficient. Despite legal requirements, for the majority, local
communities were not consulted, environmental and economic impact
studies were not held, and there was no compensation or resettlement.
There was an alarming erosion of the right to food due to the
destruction of natural resources, and there were high levels of hunger
and malnutrition in the country. In many areas communities had been
evicted to make way for plantations. The development model had been
particularly destructive for the indigenous population.
NATALIE BUGASKI, Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions, said the
Cambodian Government had stated efforts to comply with its obligations
under the International Covenant which were insufficient with regards
to the right to an adequate standard of living. This had occurred
particularly with regards to the right to adequate housing. There was
also an epidemic of evictions and forced possession of land. At least
150,000 Cambodians lived under the threat of forced eviction - which
the Government denied. The scale of evictions and land-grabbing had
increased over last years. The instigators of forced evictions
included Government authorities, private individuals, and foreign
companies. Authorities were often actively involved in illegal
land-grabbing. Evictions were carried out in the absence of special
circumstances, and were often violently carried out by the police,
military police, and private security forces, and were often not or
inadequately compensated.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
