[CML 010304] 女性に対する暴力に関する国連人権理事会決議

Maeda Akira maeda at zokei.ac.jp
2011年 6月 20日 (月) 10:18:35 JST


前田 朗です。

6月20日

ジュネーヴで開催中の国連人権理事会第17会期において、女性に対する暴力
に関する決議(L.6)が、投票な し(つまり全会一致)で採択されています。被
害者への補償や医療支援などが中心に議論されています。私は今年の「女性に対
する暴力特別報 告書」を見ていないのですが、被害補償がテーマだったようで
す。来年6月の第2〇会期には、女性に対する暴力の被害補償問題に関して一日
丸々使った審議をするということです。提案国カナダ、共同提案国ロシアの発言
が記録されています。

Human Rights Council
MORNING 17 June 2011

Action on Resolution on Violence against Women

In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.6) regarding accelerating efforts to
eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in
protection, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council
strongly condemns all acts of violence against women and girls, where
these acts are perpetrated by the State, private persons or non-State
actors, and calls for the elimination of all forms of gender-based
violence in the family, within the general community and where
perpetrated or condoned by the State, and stresses the need to treat all
forms of violence against women and girls as a criminal offence,
punishable by law, and the duty to provide victims with access to just
and effective remedies and specialized assistance, including medical and
psychological assistance, as well as effective counselling; decides to
include in the annual full-day discussion on women’s human rights, at
its twentieth session, the theme of remedies, with a focus on
transformative and culturally sensitive reparations for women who have
been subjected to violence; invites the Office of the High Commissioner
to prepare a thematic analytical study on the issue of violence against
women and girls and disability, and to report to the Human Rights
Council at its twentieth session; and decides to continue consideration
of the issue of the elimination of all forms of violence against women,
as a matter of high priority, in conformity with its annual programme of
work.


NANON BOISCLAIR (Canada), introducing resolution L.6, said this year the
resolution focused more specifically on exercising due diligence on
protecting women and girls exposed to violence, including the legal
framework for their protection. As the principal sponsor of the
resolution, Canada had embarked on open and transparent consultations
and had facilitated the participation of other delegations in the
discussions. There was also active participation by several
non-governmental organizations and civil society and representatives of
UN organs and bodies. Canada believed that it responded adequately in
the text that was presented to the concerns of certain delegations,
while maintaining all aspects that related to women exposed to violence.
Canada introduced a series of oral amendments. Canada drew attention to
main revisions which were paragraph 5 sub-paragraph K; it regretted that
there was a need to withdraw from the list of vulnerable women, women
suffering from discrimination with regard to their sexuality. It noted
that as there was not sufficient support it opted for a return to the
language of last year’s resolution. Canada noted one additional change
to the text of operative paragraph 7.

NATALIA ZOLOTOVA (Russia Federation), speaking in an explanation of the
vote before the vote on L.6, noted the importance of adopting the
resolution. Despite widespread efforts, not one county had managed to
stop violence against women and thus the Russian Federation expressed
the view that States needed to develop their own strategies to combat
this issue. This needed to be taken into account in developing United
Nations documents. The Russian Federation was grateful to the co-authors
of the draft resolution for taking into account its suggestions for
revision. A lack of desire on the part of the co-sponsors to listen to
views and engage on dialogue worsened the atmosphere surrounding the
issue. The Russian Federation believed that references to continuing
processes on women, peace and security in the United Nations Security
Council did not predetermine outcomes. In reference to the need for
special protection for human rights defenders, the Russian Federation
did not assume that these people needed rights different than the rights
enjoyed by the general population. Russian Federation hoped the
co-sponsors would be more balanced and constructive in the development
of resolutions.



CML メーリングリストの案内