INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

They are not a recent invention - ideas about rights and responsibilities have been an important
part of all societies throughout history. Since the end of World War II, there has been a united
effort by the nations of the world to decide what rights belong to all people and how they can
best be promoted and protected.
Every person has dignity and value. One of the ways that we recognise the fundamental worth of
every person is by acknowledging and respecting their human rights.
Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness. They recognise our
freedom to make choices about our lives and to develop our potential as human beings. They are
about living a life free from fear, harassment or discrimination.
Human rights can broadly be defined as a number of basic rights that people from around the
world have agreed are essential. These include the right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom
from torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and
the rights to health, education and an adequate standard of living.
These human rights are the same for all people everywhere – men and women, young and old,
rich and poor, regardless of our background, where we live, what we think or what we believe.
This is what makes human rights ‘universal’.
Human rights connect us to each other through a shared set of rights and responsibilities.
A person’s ability to enjoy their human rights depends on other people respecting those rights.
This means that human rights involve responsibility and duties towards other people and the
community.
Individuals have a responsibility to ensure that they exercise their rights with consideration for
the rights of others. For example, when someone uses their right to freedom of speech, they
should do so without interfering with someone else’s right to privacy.
Governments have a particular responsibility to ensure that people are able to enjoy their rights.
They are required to establish and maintain laws and services that enable people to enjoy a life in
which their rights are respected and protected.
For example, the right to education says that everyone is entitled to a good education. This
means that governments have an obligation to provide good quality education facilities and
services to their people.
Whether or not governments actually do this, it is generally accepted that this is the government's
responsibility and people can call them to account if they fail to respect or protect their basic
human rights.
Human rights cover virtually every area of human activity.
They include civil and political rights, which refer to a person’s rights to take part in the civil and
political life of their community without discrimination or oppression. These include rights and
freedoms such as the right to vote, the right to privacy, freedom of speech and freedom from
torture.
The right to vote and take part in choosing a government is a civil and political right.
They also include economic, social and cultural rights, which relate to a person’s rights to
prosper and grow and to take part in social and cultural activities. This group includes rights such
as the right to health, the right to education and the right to work.
The right to education is an example of an economic, social and cultural right.
One of the main differences between these two groups of rights is that, in the case of civil and
political rights, governments must make sure that they, or any other group,
are not denying people access to their rights, whereas in relation to economic, social and cultural
rights, governments must take active steps to ensure rights are being fulfilled. 
As well as belonging to every individual, there are some rights that also belong to groups of
people. This is often in recognition of the fact that these groups have been disadvantaged and
marginalised throughout history and consequently need greater protection of their rights. These
rights are called collective rights. For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
possess collective rights to their ancestral lands, which are known as native title rights. 
Rights that can only apply to individuals, for example the right to a fair trial, are
called individual rights.
Human beings are rational beings. By virtue of being humans they possess certain basic and
inalienable rights which are commonly known as human rights. They are inherent in all the
individuals irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, sex and nationality. These rights are
essential for all the individuals as they are consonant with their freedom and dignity and are
conducive to physical, moral, social and spiritual welfare. More or less people are aware about
their rights but the question is how these rights will be protected. Yes, we have various
mechanisms to protect our rights. In this assignment, an attempt has been made to discuss about
one of such mechanisms, i.e. the role of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in
protection of human rights. After introducing the topic with the meaning of human rights, next
part of the assignment deals with the importance of national institutions of human rights in a
country and further discussed the various stages at the international level towards establishment
of such institutions. After that position in India has been discussed with the enactment of
Protection of Human Rights Act. In addition to that the structure and functioning of NHRC has
been discussed in brief and how far it has been effective in protecting human rights in India.
The setting up of national institution is one of the most effective means to perform the various
functions relating to the implementation of human rights. Such an institution raised human rights
awareness through education, training, research and conduct impartial investigation into alleged
violations. It may also prove or secure effective redress either by negotiation with the
government concerned or may assist the victims by providing relief through a court of law. The
domestic institution of human rights may also influence the legislators to preserve human rights
in the widest sense of the term and may also monitor government compliance with treaty
commitments.

India has shown keen interest in the past in establishing or strengthening a national institution for
the promotion and protection of human rights before the Third Committee of the General
Assembly. It introduced a draft resolution wherein it emphasized the importance of the integrity
 and independence of such national institutions. In the draft resolution it also requested the
Secretary-General of the United Nations to submit a report to the General Assembly in two years
regarding the functioning of the various kinds of national institutions and their contribution
towards implementing human rights instruments. The interest shown by India in the
establishment of a national institution for the protection and promotion of human rights was
laudable. The interest shown in the international forum implied that it was in favour of
establishing such an institution. However, at that time no such institution was established.

In early 1990s, India felt the need of establishing a Commission as a positive response to the
criticisms of the foreign governments in the context of political unrest and violence in Punjab,
Jammu & Kashmir, North-East and Andhra Pradesh. Pressure was added from the domestic front
as well for the creation of such commission because of the awareness among the people for the
protection of human rights. All this led the Government to decide to enact a law to establish a
Human Rights Commission. Government’s proposal to establish the Commission was of course
sudden and without due deliberations.

The Protection of Human Rights Act was enacted in the year 1993. It provides for the
constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in
States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights. Section 2(d) of this Act
defined human rights by stating that human rights means the rights relating to life, liberty,
equality and dignity of the individuals guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the
International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.

The Commission shall consist of a Chairperson and seven other members. A person who has
been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is alone eligible to become the Chairperson. The other
members are appointed from the following categories:-

 One member may be sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court of India;
 One member may or retired Chief Justice of any High Court;
 Two members are appointed on the basis of their special knowledge or experience in the
field of human rights and;
 The Chairpersons of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the National
Commission for Scheduled Tribes, National Commission for Minorities, and the National
Commission for Women are the members.

The Chairperson and the members of the Commission are appointed by the President of India
upon the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister as the Chairperson
and five other members as specified in the Act.

Functions of the Commission

1. To inquire into the violation of human rights or abatement thereof either on its own or on
a petition submitted by an affected party or on his behalf by any person, or negligence shown by
a public servant in the prevention of such a violation.
2. To intervene in any of the proceedings pending before a court with the permission of
such a court on any complaint of violation of human rights.
3. To visit any jail, or any other institutions where persons are detained or lodged for
purposes of treatment reformation or protection under the control of a State government with an
advance notice to study the living conditions of the inmates and to make recommendations.
4. To review the safeguards for the protection of human rights provided by the constitution
or any of the existing law and to suggest measures to the Central and State governments for their
effective implementation.
5. To review all the aspects that inhibits the enjoyment of human rights including the acts of
terrorism and recommends the remedial measures to the Government.
6. To study the treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make
recommendations to the Central government for their effective implementation.
7. To undertake and promote research in the field of human rights
8. To propagate the concept of human rights and to promote the awareness for their
protection among the various sections of the society, it can undertake publication of books or
pamphlets or conduct seminars, or use the media or any other means available to it.
9. To promote and support the non-governmental organizations and institutions in the field
of human rights.

Powers of the Commission

The Commission exercises the following powers while inquiring into the violation of human
rights

1. The Commission while inquiring in the violations of the human rights exercises the same
powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. They are especially
in respect to:
2. Summoning and enforcing the attendance and examining them on oath;
3. Discovery and production of any document
4. Receiving evidence on affidavits
5. Requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office
6. Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
7. Any other matter which may be prescribed
8. The Commission if in its opinion arrives at a conclusion that any information may be
useful for or relevant on any such aspects or matters under its consideration it can direct any
person to submit such information required to it. Any such person directed by it, in whatever
capacity he may be, is legally bound to furnish such information as directed by it within the
meaning of Sections 176 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. The Commission or any other officer authorised by it can enter into any building or place,
wherein, if in the opinion of the Commission that any document relating to the subject matter of
inquiry may be found and to seize such a document or to take extracts of copies therefrom
subject to the provisions of Section 100 of CrPC to the extent it may be applicable.
10. The Commission is though empowered to exercise the powers of a civil court only during
the course of inquiring into the complaints, it can also record the facts constituting the offence
and the statement of an accused person as is described in Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 of
the IPC. The Commission after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of
the accused as specified in CrPC has to transmit the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to
 conduct the trial. Since all the proceedings before the Commission are considered as judicial
proceedings, the Magistrate to whom the case is referred bound to conduct the trial.

Investigation

The Commission exercises the following investigative powers while inquiring into the
complaints:-

1. It may utilise the services of any officer or any of the investigative agency of the Central
or State government with their prior approval.
2. The officer or agency whose services are utilised by it shall be under the control and
direction of the Commission. Further, the Commission may-
3. Summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him; or
4. Direct such person to discover or produce any document before it;

 Requisition any public record or copy therefrom from any office.

1. Any statement made by a person before any officer or agency whose services are utilised
or a statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall
not be used against him in any civil or criminal proceedings; except for the purpose of
prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement. However, the Commission is
empowered to use such statement if it is made in reply to a question asked by the Commission or
relevant to the subject matter of inquiry.
2. If the Commission is not satisfied about the correctness of the facts stated and any
conclusion arrived at in the report submitted by such person, it may conduct an inquiry or
examine such person or persons assisted the investigation.

Inquiry into Complaints

The Commission while inquiring into the complaints of the violations of human rights may adopt
the following procedure:

1. It can call for information or report either from the Central or any of the State
government concerned or any other Authority, or organisation subordinate to them within the
time frame fixed by it. However, it may proceed to inquire into the complaint on its own if it
does not receive the information or report within the time frame. But the Commission shall not
proceed further if it is satisfied upon the report submitted by the concerned government or
authority along with the action initiated.
2. If in the opinion of the Commission a matter requires immediate action, it can initiate an
inquiry even without asking the relevant government or authority for their report or information.

Procedure with respect to Armed forces

In accordance with the provisions of the Act while dealing with the complaints of the armed
forces it adopts the following procedure:-
1. It may, either on its own or upon receipt of a petition, can ask the Central Government to
submit a report. After receiving the report from the Central government it may not either proceed
further, or may make recommendations to that effect.
2. From the date of the receipt of the recommendations the Central Government is bound to
inform the Commission of the action taken by it within three months, or within the period of
extension as permitted by the Commission.
3. The Commission has to publish a report on its recommendations and the action initiated
by the Central government upon them.
4. The Commission transmits copy of the published report to the petitioner or his
representative.

If the Commission at any stage of inquiry considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of
any person it may do so. But if in the opinion of the Commission such an inquiry may
prejudicially affect the reputation of the person, it has to give a reasonable opportunity to that
person to produce evidence in his favour during such inquiry. However, the Commission cannot
conduct an inquiry if it affects the reputation of the person in any manner.

 Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and others

On 3rd December, 1996, the Commission took cognizance of a letter from Chaturanan Mishra,
then Union Minister for Agriculture regarding starvation deaths due to the drought
in Bolangir district of Orissa.

In similar matter a writ petition was filed on 23 December 1996 by the Indian Council of Legal
Aid and Advice and others before the Supreme Court of India under article 32 of the
Constitution. The petition alleged that deaths by starvation continued to occur in certain districts
of Orissa.

The Supreme Court of India on 26th July 1997 directed that since matter is seized with the
NHRC and is expected to deliver some order, the petitioner can approach to the Commission.

Realizing the urgency of the matter the Commission acted quickly and initially prepared an
interim measure for the two years period and also requested the Orissa State Government to
constitute a Committee to examine all aspects of the Land Reform question in the KBK Districts.

A Special Rapporteur has been regularly monitoring the progress of implementation of its
directions. The Commission observed that as starvation deaths reported from some pockets of the
country are invariably the consequence of mis-governance resulting from acts of omission and
commission on the part of the public servant. The Commission strongly supported the e view that
to be free from hunger is a Fundamental Right of the people of the country. Starvation, hence,
constitutes a gross denial and violation of this right.The Commission organized a meeting with
leading experts on the subject, in January, 2004 to discuss issues relating to Right to Food. The
Commission has approved the constitution of a Core Group on Right to Food that can advise on
issues referred to it and also suggest appropriate programmes, which can be undertaken by the
Commission. By this decision it is firmly established in the context of India that economic, social
and cultural rights are treated par with the civil and political rights before the India Courts and
the Commission. India is amongst the view countries in the world, which have accorded
justifiability of economic, social and cultural rights.

Punjab Mass Cremation Order

Two writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of India containing serious allegations
about large-scale cremations resorted to by the Punjab Police of persons allegedly killed in what
were termed as “encounters”.

The main thrust of the Writ Petitions was that there were extra-judicial executions and hasty and
secret cremations rendering the State liable for action.

These petitions were largely relied on a press note of 16th January 1995 by the Human Rights
Wing of the ShiromaniAkali Dal under the caption “Disappeared” “cremation ground”. The note
alleged that the Punjab Police had cremated a large number of human bodies after labelling them
as unidentified.

The Supreme Court after examining the report submitted to the Court by Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), relating to cremation of dead bodies observed that report indicates 585 dead
bodies were fully identified, 274 partially identified and 1238 unidentified. The report discloses
flagrant violation of human rights on a large scale.

On 12 December 1996 the Court requested the Commission to have the matter examined in
accordance with law and determine all the issues related with the case. Though matter is still
pending before the Commission for final consideration, however, the Commission granted in
some cases compensation amounting of Rupees Two LakhFifty thousand (Rs. 2,50,000/-) to the
next of kin of the 89 deceased persons. While granting thecompensation the Commission relied
on the laws developed by the Courts in India in the field of evolving legal standards for remedial,
reparatory, punitive and exemplary damages for violation of Human Rights.

The Commission observed, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that
monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes
perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental
right of life of a citizen by the public servants and the State. The claim of the citizen is based on
the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and
the citizen must receive the amount of compensation.

Gujarat Communal Riot

The Commission took suomotu action on communal riot which took place in Gujarat in early
2002, the decision to take action was based of media reports, and both print and electronic. The
Commission also received an e-mail communication requesting the Commission to intervene.

A team of the Commission had visited Gujarat between19 to 22 March 2002 and prepared a
confidential report, which is later made to the public. The release of the confidential report was
initially withheld to provide an opportunity to the Gujarat government to comment on its
contents, given the sensitivity of the allegations contained in it. Unfortunately, the State
government did not bother much about this report. The Commission observed that the State has
 failed to discharge its primary and inescapable responsibility to protect the rights to life, liberty,
equality and dignity of all of those who constitute it. The principle of res ipsa loquitur (the affair
speaking for itself) applies in this case in assessing the degree of State responsibility in the
failure to protect the Constitutional rights of the people of Gujarat. The responsibility of the State
extended not only to the acts of its own agents, but also to those of non-State players within its
jurisdiction and to any action that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights.

Shortcomings of National Human Rights Commission

Though the NHRC is in existence since 1993, millions of people suffer from violations of human
rights everyday. Due to some glaring defects and lacunae in the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993, role and functioning of NHRC in protecting and promoting human rights is seriously
affected. There is a dire need for certain radical modifications in the 1993 Act in order to make it
more effective and so as to achieve the desired objectives in true manner.

1. The method of selection of the members of the Commission needs attention. The
selection of the members is wholly weighed towards the ruling party and the principal
opposition, both at the centre and state level. The NHRC does not have power to appoint its own
staff.
2. The composition of NHRC is least balanced as three out of five members must be judges
both, in the National as well as the State Commission and all would have to be political
appointees. So, at least two members are required to be appointed from among the person having
knowledge of, or practical experience in the matters related to human rights. Representations
should be given to the NGO and human rights activists to instil confidence in the minds of
people.
3. The relation between NHRC and the State Commissions should be made amply clear
because sometimes questions arise over jurisdiction and control. The revisional powers over the
State Commission should be enumerated as of the powers of NHRC. The essence of the
revisional power is to have control by way of supervision, especially the power to call for
records. The need is to make special provision to make clear cut demarcation in the areas of their
functioning and their administrative relation with each other.
4. Another major drawback is the lack of independent budget of the NHRC. The present
scenario is that the purse of NHRC is totally dependent on the government to meet the expenses
of investigation and research apart from the allowance and salaries. Actually there should be
provision for drawing the salaries directly from the consolidated funds so as to ensure greater
autonomy and transparency. The financial independence will make the NHRC independent in the
true sense of the term. It will ensure smooth and effective performance of NHRC.

There is inherent drawback in Section 12(c) of the Act. The necessity of intimation severely inhibits
and defeats the investigation of the Commission. It is such a loophole that makes the whole exercise
eyewash. It is therefore recommended that the requirement of informing the State government about
the Commission’s visit to such place should be waived off. This shall certainly help the Commission
to make spot inquiries and present the true picture of human rights violation.

5. Further Section 13 of the Act deals with powers of NHRC relating to inquiries. There is
nothing in this section regarding the transfer of cases, it is suggested that NHRC may be given
 the power to transfer any of the complaints filed or pending before it to the State Commission of
the State from where the complaint arises, whenever it considers expedient.
6. The Commission suffers from the limitation on its own function. It can intervene in any
proceedings pending before a court regarding violation of human rights as and when any matter
is reported to it but it has to seek prior approval of concerned authority. This hinders its
functioning as the concerned authority may linger it unnecessarily to avoid the commission.
Therefore in the interest of discouraging the human rights violations, an amendment should be
made in the Act to the effect that the prior approval should be time bound or the requirement of
approval should be completely waived off.
7. Section 36(1) of the Act provides that the NHRC shall not inquire into any matter which
is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law
for the time being in force. This obstacle should be removed by the amendment in 1993 Act,
because many a time government deliberately hands over the case to another Commission for
side-lining the Commission. For any reason whatsoever, if the government intends to deprive the
Commission of the jurisdiction to inquire into any violation of human rights, it can do so by
constituting a separate Commission under any law in force. Another major impediment in the
working of NHRC is imposed by Section 36(2) of the Act.
8. The Commission under the 1993 Act is not empowered to take any punitive action
against the violator. It is also not bestowed with any contempt power for defying its order by the
government officials. It can only make recommendations for the action to be taken by the
concerned authority. For getting better results from the working of NHRC, it should be given
wider powers to call for the explanation, initiate the proceedings for prosecution against the
violator and take appropriate action including the awarding of compensation to the victim.
9. Another provision that needs attention is that the Commission under the 1993 Act merely
acts as an instrumentality between the victim and the government for lawful solution to the
violation of human rights, and make its own recommendations, leaving the results to the
government or the courts. The Commission does not have any authority to award compensation
or extend any other relief immediately required by victim especially in terms of monetary
assistance. The government is also not being obliged to accede to the recommendations made by
the Commission. Thus due to lack of effective mechanism recommendations of the Commission
are not being taken seriously. This is one of the most glaring drawbacks in the 1993 Act which
makes the Commission toothless and non-effective. If the working of the Commission is to be
made good and effective, an amendment should be made in the 1993 Act so that the
Commission’s recommendations must be totally accepted by the Government and implemented
accordingly.

And it was right for us – not just to have remembered Mandela’s greatness, but to have,
almost unconsciously, contrasted it with all the narrow politicians who continue to
proliferate across the face of the world. Authoritarian in nature, many of them are wily
political in-fighters, but most are of thin mind and faint humanity – prone to fan division
and intolerance and just for the sake of securing their political ambition. While some do
this more openly than others, all are well aware what they practise comes at the expense
of vulnerable humans.

To them I say: you may seize power, or stubbornly hold onto it, by playing on and
stoking the fears of your followers. You may congratulate yourselves for this and you
may think yourself so clever for it. But we know all you’ve done is copy the behaviour of
 previous generations of once strong, but ultimately catastrophic, leaders and politicians.
Yours will in the end become a mouse-like global reputation, never the fine example of
the leader you think you are – and never even close to a Mandela. To deserve global
respect, you must begin to follow his example – committing to the spirit and letter of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What makes it so difficult for us to understand this Declaration, its universality and how
to view our fundamental sameness relative to our differences? We are all humans. We are
almost identical genetically – on average, in DNA sequence, each human is 99.9% the
same as any other human. We have the same organs, we all have to breathe, eat, sleep
and, to survive as a species, reproduce. We have feelings, we love, we think, we have
hopes and, if fortunate, we will grow old before expiring. This is the core of what it is to
be a human being.

Everything that’s bolted on – that is colour, race, ethnicity, gender and all the rest – comes
only after the acquisition by each of us of our rights as human beings. And this is what the
adoption of the Universal Declaration formalized seventy years ago. The present-day hatred,
and its corresponding rising uncertainties, seem to come from humans who view the
relationship between the core and the bolted–on characteristics in reverse. In their view, the
differences decide everything. But this approach, if each of us were to adopt it, and act upon
it, would be an open invitation to human self-annihilation. It cannot be – it simply cannot
beSince my last update to this Council I have conducted missions to Libya, Peru, Uruguay,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. Recognising that not all
States will accept a visit, I express my deep appreciation for these invitations, which
demonstrate commendable openness to discussing human rights issues. In my statement to
the Council in June, I will be addressing the issue of refusals of access to international human
rights mechanisms, and to my Office.

In every instance, I encourage the concerned States to embark on deeper dialogue and
cooperation with my Office and the human rights mechanisms. Before I begin what will
sadly prove to be a very long list of human rights violations and abuses, I would like to
highlight a sample of advances which are underway in several countries.

In Ecuador, I commend the Government for conducting a very broad dialogue, including
with media and human rights defenders, as a first step towards overcoming the country's
polarization. In Saudi Arabia, I note with great interest the royal directive stipulating
that all government services must from now on be provided to women without prior
approval from male guardians. I commend The Gambia for its announcement of a
moratorium on the death penalty last month. In Somalia, I welcome a number of positive
developments, including the establishment of a national human rights commission with a
diverse composition, and I encourage the Government to continue its efforts to build
institutions and bring peace. Portugal has made noteworthy strides towards ending
discrimination against Roma, sharply increasing the number of Roma aged 16 to 24
engaged in work, training or education.

I will now turn to the geographic sections of my statement, emphasising the urgency of
two situations: Syria, where the horror of eastern Ghouta needs to be spoken of time and
again; and Myanmar, where the most recent reports gathered by my Office point to the
continuation of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine State.As this Council session opened, the
conflict in Syria entered a new phase of horror. In addition to the staggering bloodshed in
Eastern Ghouta, which was discussed in urgent debate last week, escalating violence in
the province of Idlib is placing some two million people in danger. In Afrin, the offensive
by Turkey is also threatening large numbers of civilians. People in Government-
controlled Damascus are suffering a new escalation of ground-based strikes. And the
offensive against extremist groups has resulted in large-scale loss of civilian life.

More than 400,000 people have reportedly been killed in the Syrian conflict, and more
than a million injured, many very severely; many are children. Hundreds of thousands of
people are living under sieges, the vast majority imposed by Government forces and their
allies. Over 11 million people have been forced to leave their homes. Tens of thousands
of people are detained, frequently in inhuman conditions, including torture; many others
have been forcibly disappeared. Hospitals, schools and marketplaces have been
massively, and in some cases, deliberately, damaged and destroyed: in 2017, one health
centre was attacked every four days. My Office also documented over a thousand
airstrikes and ground-based strikes in 2017, and numerous intolerable human rights
violations and abuses by all parties to the conflict: Government forces, their allied
militias, international actors, and armed opposition groups – among them, ISIL.

It must be recalled how the massive violations committed by the Government of Syria
and its local allies, beginning in 2011, created the initial space in which extremist armed
groups later flourished. Remember the Shabeehah? Recent attempts to justify
indiscriminate, brutal attacks on hundreds of thousands of civilians by the need to combat
a few hundred fighters – as in Eastern Ghouta – are legally, and morally, unsustainable.
Also, when you are prepared to kill your own people, lying is easy too. Claims by the
Government of Syria that it is taking every measure to protect its civilian population are
frankly ridiculous.

This month, it is Eastern Ghouta which is, in the words of the Secretary General, hell on
earth; next month or the month after, it will be somewhere else where people face an
apocalypse – an apocalypse intended, planned and executed by individuals within the
Government, apparently with the full backing of some of their foreign supporters. It is
urgent to reverse this catastrophic course, and to refer Syria to the International Criminal
Court.
The conflict in Yemen continues to escalate, creating a humanitarian disaster of new
magnitudes. Civilians suffer indiscriminate shelling and sniper attacks by Houthi and
affiliated forces, as well as airstrikes conducted by the Saudi-led Coalition forces; these
remain the leading cause of civilian casualties, including child casualties, in the conflict. I
am particularly concerned about the hundreds of thousands of civilians trapped in the city
of Taiz. The Council will receive a detailed update of my concerns on 21 March.

My Office will brief this Council on Libya on 20 March. During my mission there in
October I was alarmed by the near-complete lawlessness throughout the country, with
almost total impunity for even the most serious crimes. I encourage all States to support
the International Criminal Court's investigation into crimes against humanity committed
in the country. 
The Council will be briefed on 21 March on the human rights situation in Afghanistan,
where my concerns continue to deepen on protection of civilians, with ever larger suicide
attacks in Kabul and other urban areas. Accountability for those responsible is
imperative, and I welcome the ICC prosecutor’s decision in November to proceed with an
investigation of the situation.I deplore Iran's odious practice of executing people for
crimes committed when they were children. I am also concerned about the excessive use
of force against demonstrations in December and January for economic and social rights,
as well as the subsequent deaths of a number of protestors held in custody. Widespread
resentment at high levels of youth unemployment, inequality, lack of accountability of
State institutions and the greater demand for rights should be addressed through dialogue
and reforms. Repressive measures – such as arrests and prosecutions of human rights
defenders, journalists, international environmental activists and women protesting against
the compulsory hijab – can only deepen the people's resentment. The Secretary General's
report on Iran will be presented to the Council on 21 March.

In Kenya, I am concerned that recent government actions against the press contravene
freedom of the media, a pillar of democracy. I am also concerned by threats against civil
society: Kenya's impressive civil society groups are an inspiration for many, and the
current regression is disturbing. There have also been incidents of harassment and arrest
of leading opposition figures. I urge respect for the independence of the Kenyan judiciary
and encourage the Government to implement the decisions of the courts. It is essential
that Kenya ensure accountability for the scores of human rights violations reported during
the 2017 elections, including sexual violence and unlawful killings.I draw this Council's
attention to the deteriorating human rights situation in Tanzania, including heavy-handed
restrictions on media freedoms and on civil society, and an increasing number of attacks
on, and arrests of, Government critics. The Government has also taken an increasingly
repressive approach to important social issues, with arrests of LGBTI activists, growing
attacks on the LGBTI community, and attacks and threats against people working to
provide reproductive health-care. The Government's policy of permanently refusing any
further education to girls who become pregnant is shocking, and I am disturbed by the
High Court’s finding that such a policy is not discriminatory.

In Equatorial Guinea, I am deeply concerned about the arrest and detention of more
than a hundred leaders and opposition members, in the aftermath of the legislative
elections of November 2017, and the failed coup plot which was announced by the
Government in January. I urge transparent and comprehensive investigations, and
scrupulous respect for due process guarantees.

In Honduras, I am alarmed at the surge in threats and intimidation against human rights
defenders, journalists, media workers, and social and political activists. My Office will
release a report in the coming days detailing excessive use of force and mass arrests in
response to protests which took place following the 2017 November elections, and the
Council will be briefed on 21 March.

In Colombia, I am increasingly alarmed by the murders of human rights defenders and

activists; more than 20 reports of killings were received by my Office in just the first six
weeks of this year. My Office will update the Council on these and other concerns on 21
March.

In the United States, I am shocked by reports that migrants intercepted at the southern

borders, including children, are detained in abusive conditions – such as freezing
temperatures – and that some young children are being detained separately from their
families. Detentions and deportations of long-standing and law-abiding migrants have
sharply increased, tearing families apart and creating enormous hardship. In addition, the
US Government has terminated the Central American Minors Refugee and Parole
Programme, which offered adolescents and children a lifeline to safety, and put an end to
Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of people. I deplore the continuing
uncertainty about beneficiaries of the DACA programme. I am also concerned about the
US decision to revoke the planned closure of the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay.
Indefinite incarceration in this facility, without trial and in frequently inhumane
conditions, constitutes a breach of international law. I am also concerned about proposals
that could drastically reduce social protections, particularly in the light of the concerns
expressed by the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, following his
visit to the US in December.

In Haiti, I regret the lack of action regarding development of a national Plan of Action to
implement recommendations of human rights mechanisms, and I remain concerned about
continuing allegations of serious violations committed by elements of the National
Police. The Council will be briefed in greater detail on 21 March.

In Guatemala, I am alarmed by increasingly regressive legislative proposals, including a

draft law on amnesties and the reform of the Penal Code to expand the definition of the
crime of terrorism. I reiterate the critical importance of the Attorney General's work in
past years with the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala led by Ivan
Velasquez. I encourage the nomination of an independent and qualified new Attorney
General. The Council will be briefed on 21 March on these and other concerns.

In Peru, I was dismayed by the release of former President Alberto Fujimori, who was
convicted in 2009 for severe human rights violations tantamount to international crimes. I
note that he may now be tried for his alleged role in the death-squad murders of six
farmers. During my mission in October I urged the authorities to strengthen
accountability for crimes against women, and to ensure effective implementation of the
law on consultation with indigenous peoples.

In my meetings with the authorities in Uruguay, I commended their very significant

efforts to integrate human rights into public policies. I trust we will see progress
regarding violence against women and the very difficult conditions for adolescents in
detention.

In El Salvador, I am alarmed by consistent reports of extra-judicial killings by the

security forces, fuelled by very weak accountability for these crimes. Moves to disband
or restructure police units which have been accused of extra-judicial killings do not
replace the need to hold perpetrators to account. The situation of women and girls in the
 country continues to be deeply troubling, with rates of murder and violence against
women among the highest in the region, and frequently committed with impunity.During
my mission to El Salvador in November, I was shaken by the draconian impact of the
country's absolute prohibition of abortion. As of October last year, at least 159 women
have been imprisoned since 1998 under this legislation, more than 20 of them for
“aggravated homicide” and sentenced to between 30 and 40 years in jail. Many say they
in fact suffered miscarriages or other obstetric emergencies – and all of those currently
detained happen to be poor.

Time and again, it is always the poor everywhere who, having no access to strong legal
counsel, no family connections, no money with which to travel outside the country, suffer
terribly – always, always the poor.

One young woman, whom I met in detention, was recently released following the
commutation of her 30-year jail sentence. However, she has not been declared innocent, and
has received no reparations for the more than 10 years that she has spent in jail. And when
many in the country want to raise the penalty beyond 30 years, to 50 years, it brought home
to me how cruel we humans can be, and the unchallengeable need for human rights. I do not
mind telling Council members: all of us who heard the testimony of the young women at the
Ilopango detention centre wept, openly, with them. El Salvador should halt further
application of this poorly conceived legislation, and immediately review all cases where
women have been detained for abortion-related offences.

It takes real courage to stand up for women's rights – including sexual and reproductive
rights – in many parts of the world, in this 21st century. In countries across every region,
women are suffering from increasingly regressive legislation, threats against activists and a
renewed obsession with controlling their decisions. In the past year, a new movement for
justice has risen up to combat the abuse and sexual exploitation of women: the MeToo
movement, an expression of solidarity and a force for dignity that is much needed, including
in the wealthiest societies. Wherever I have travelled I have been privileged to meet women
who defy restrictions on their freedom. These resilient and powerful women teach us – have,
indeed, taught me – that every individual can help to reshape society, and the world.

Conclusion

In spite of its glaring defects in the Act, NHRC has made significant contributions to
bring a human rights approach to legislation, policy and programs in our country. It
would not be out of place to mention that NHRC as a watchdog had done reasonable
work in propelling and protection of human rights. Its contributions in India have gone
beyond the expected role of investigating alleged violations, conducting public inquiries,
exercising advisory jurisdiction, providing advice and assistance to governments, creating
awareness, promoting interaction, exchange, and better coordination among other state
and international human rights institutions and publishing annual reports. It has been
pertinent towards strengthening the Human Rights Jurisprudence in our country. NHRC
has set the agenda towards a rights based approach at an international level as well. In the
era of globalization the NHRC has a key role to play in ensuring that the all sections of
society can productively engage with the expansion of opportunities. By ensuring equal
opportunities and protecting citizens against discrimination and inaction, the NHRC can
provide a level playing field to all our citizens and help in shaping our country protecting
citizens against discrimination and inaction. The objective assessment of the
Commission’s endeavours must come from the people of India, whom it seeks to serve in
all of their rich diversity and varying circumstances. The performance of a national
institution has to be assessed in terms of not only its successes in achieving its stated
objectives, but also the constraints within which it has worked.