In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.34) on discrimination based on religion or belief and
its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural
rights, adopted by a vote of 22 in favour,
one against, and 24 abstentions as orally amended, the Council emphasizes
that discrimination based on religion or belief often has an adverse impact
on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly with
regard to members of religious minorities and other persons in vulnerable
situations; urges States to ensure that everyone has the right, inter alia,
to education, work, an adequate standard of living, the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and to take part
in cultural life, without any discrimination on the basis of religion or
belief; to ensure that no one is discriminated against on the basis of his
or her religion or belief, in particular with regard to access to, inter
alia, humanitarian assistance, social benefits or the public service in
one’s country; to ensure that no one is affected, because of his or her
religion or belief, in the enjoyment of his or her economic, social and
cultural rights by, inter alia, discriminatory laws on housing or land
trust, the abusive use of property confiscation or any other discriminatory
practices; to take the necessary measures, in accordance with international
human rights law, to combat discrimination based on religion or belief by
non-State actors, with particular regard to persons belonging to religious
minorities and other persons in vulnerable situations; to devote particular
attention to discriminatory practices against women on the basis of their
religion or belief that adversely affect the enjoyment of their economic,
social and cultural rights; to ensure that appropriate legal and other
remedies, in accordance with international human rights law, are available
to individuals in order to allow them to seek redress against
discrimination based on religion or belief that affects the enjoyment of
their economic, social and cultural rights; to make all appropriate efforts
to encourage those engaged in teaching, as well as social workers, to
promote mutual understanding, tolerance and respect; and requests the
Special Rapporteur to submit her next annual report to the Council at its
thirteenth session.

The result
of the vote were as follows:

In
favour(22): Angola, Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, Chile, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico,
Netherlands, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Against(1):
South Africa.

Abstentions(24): Azerbaijan,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, and Zambia.

PETRA ALI
DOLAKOVA, (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, introducing the
draft resolution, said that the freedom of religion or belief was a
sensitive issue, not only in the Human Rights Council, but also in society
at large. The European Union would like the Council to continue devoting
attention to important issues as the freedom of belief or religion.
Thematic resolutions did not overrule earlier resolutions on the topics but
specified them. The European Union chose this theme after the presentation
of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion. Hardly any theme showed
the interrelatedness of all human rights as the freedom of religion. The
resolution also invited the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion to
report again to the thirteenth session of the Human Rights Council so that
the Council continued its discussions on the topic.

IMAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of
the Organization of the Islamic
Conferencein a general comment on the draft
resolution on discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on
the enjoyment economic, social and cultural rights, said they attached
great importance to the work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief. Muslims were victims of intolerance, hatred and
discrimination in many societies around the world. The draft resolution had
to be comprehensive while addressing the contemporary challenges in this
view. Pakistan put forth a number of proposals during the drafting of this
resolution on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference Member
States, of which very few were accepted. The challenge of religious
intolerance was not addressed adequately in the draft resolution, because
of, among other things, the reluctance to institutionalize religious
discussion which aimed to achieve interfaith harmony, the formal and legal
distinction between different religions and faiths did not constitute
discrimination as cited in the resolution. The Organization for the Islamic
Conference along with other members also proposed inclusion of combating
the negative impact of stereotyping by the media and its impact on the
enjoyment of enjoyment economic, social and cultural rights. As such,
Pakistan called for a vote and would abstain in the vote on the draft
resolution.

GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI
(South Africa),
speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the resolution
presented major challenges in its current form, as it brought in new
elements without addressing issues related to freedom of religion or
belief. The title should be changed. The approach diminished the suffering
of victims of human rights violations, and the Council should take note of
the contemporary forms of challenges to this. The right to freedom of
expression was entrenched in South African law, and that country understood
the challenges with regards to exercise of freedom of religion or belief in
the context of the freedom of expression. The slant of the resolution, in
particular with regards to incitement to religious hatred, was not helpful.
The focus of the resolution on economic, social and cultural rights,
combined with the lack of justiciability of these rights, was
inconceivable. South Africa did not share the view that only civil and
political rights were justiciable. Were the resolution put to a vote, South
Africa would vote against it.

JOHAN ARIFF ABDUL RAZAK, (Malaysia), speaking in an
explanation of the vote before the vote, said while appreciative of the
efforts of the sponsors of the texts, some of the arguments of other
delegations had not been taken on board. The issues of religious dialogue,
negative stereotyping and hate speech had not been highlighted in the text.
As a multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic country, Malaysia had
managed to find a balance between freedom of religion or belief and freedom
of expression. Given the aforementioned reservations of Malaysia on the
resolution, Malaysia would abstain during the vote.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), speaking in an
explanation of the vote before the vote, said that discrimination on any
grounds was unacceptable. All bodies had to ensure the protection of
individuals against discrimination. Indonesia was strongly against acts
which constituted discrimination on the grounds of religion. Indonesia was
concerned that this resolution did not take into account aspects of
economic, social and cultural rights as well as the significant role the
state and the media played in the prevention of discrimination. Therefore,
Indonesia joined the Organization of the Islamic Conference in abstaining
in the vote.

VLADIMIR ZHEGLOV
(Russian Federation), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote,
thanked the authors of the resolution because they had changed the original
draft, taking into account many of the views made by other delegations.
However, it was clear that in the draft not all opinions made were
included, and not all the interests of the Council had been taken into
account. The Russian Federation believed that this type of resolution
should have been prepared in a more constructive manner, and a more
flexible approach should had been applied in order to avoid division on
this type of resolution.

JUAN ANTONIO
FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote,
said South Africa gave an excellent explanation of vote, and Cuba shared
that view one hundred percent. Cuba was concerned at the change in the
title, and the approach in the resolution, and was concerned that the
co-sponsors had not included the views of many. Cuba would abstain in the
vote.