Mr. Colin Wrafter:

I thank the Deputy. I will address the question on perspectives of human rights, particularly the positions of the members of the Human Rights Council, as well as the questions of technical assistance and mortality among those under five years of age.

Our position is very clear: human rights are universal. Having said that, every country has its own interests. In our membership of the Human Rights Council we are not pretending to prioritise everything. We could not possibly do so. What we are doing is picking issues we believe are important and in respect of which we have something to offer. A good example is the issue of mortality among the under-fives.

Civil society space is an issue in many countries which may have many kinds of political system. There are problems in Africa and eastern Europe. Some countries place great emphasis on economic and social rights. Traditionally, western countries have emphasised political and civil rights. We are certainly in the western camp, but we have a slightly distinctive approach in the sense that we have a history that is not typically western because we were once colonised.

I do not want to go into the details of what happened on the Hungarian resolution, simply because I do not have the details to hand. However, with the permission of the Chairman and the Deputy, I would like to mention what happened in the case of our own resolution on civil society space, which was finally adopted without a vote.

Cuba and Pakistan tabled five written amendments between them, with support from other states including Egypt, China, Russia, South Africa, Algeria, Venezuela, India, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Djibouti. In specific terms, Cuba and Pakistan wanted us to delete a paragraph which emphasised the need for states to amend domestic, legal and administrative provisions which have sought, or are being misused, to hinder the work and endanger the safety of civil society in a manner contrary to international law. This was rejected by a vote of 12 in favour, 28 against, of which we were one, and seven abstentions.

There was also a proposal to dilute the references to freedom of expression and opinion, peaceful assembly and association. This again was rejected by a vote of 11 in favour, 28 against and eight abstentions. There is a group of countries who would not necessarily share our perspective on the universality of human rights, particularly in the areas of freedom of expression, association and assembly.

Moving on to the question of technical assistance, there is a budget - not in the Human Rights Council, as such, but in the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights whereby she provides technical assistance. A good example has been the office of the high commissioner in Tunisia, which has provided technical assistance to Tunisia in the context of the Arab Spring, and which has been quite successful.

The office in Cairo has been less successful. There are proposals to establish an office in Myanmar-Burma, but there are still ongoing difficulties in arriving at an agreement with the host country. There is provision for technical assistance through the United Nations, although not from the Human Rights Council in the narrow sense.

The question of under-fives goes back to the point I made earlier that one cannot make a sharp distinction between development and human rights. In our initiative on child mortality and morbidity, we are trying to bring what is called a human rights-based approach to the treatment of children. In other words children, and everybody else, have a right to health and medical treatment in so far as that is possible. We are trying to universalise these principles, which is not always easy in practice, given what happens on the ground with particular governments.

I hope I have covered everything but if I have not, then members of the committee should revert to me.