SECTION I: Promoting British Values

As Foreign Secretary William Hague said on 15 September in his speech “Britain’s

Values in a Networked World”, “It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign
policy without a conscience, and neither is it in our interests”. The values of fairness,
dignity, liberty and justice, as well as our support for democratic freedom, universal
human rights and the rule of law are “part of our national DNA and will be woven
deeply into the decision-making processes of our foreign policy at every stage”.
They form the essential framework for the pursuit of the Government’s foreign policy.

Our approach is based on realism. Each country is different and we work with the
local grain to achieve our goals. This does not mean that we will ever overlook
human rights abuses; indeed, we raise our human rights concerns wherever and
whenever they arise, including with our allies and those countries with which we are
seeking closer ties. But our approach is a practical one, working with others to
promote human rights in a pragmatic and effective way that strengthens the global
commitment to universal human rights, the rule of law, democracy and respect for
all. We also have a strategic interest in promoting these values, as they are integral
to long-term stability and prosperity, both for the UK and more widely.

Human rights and the rule of law are inextricably linked. The rule of law is more than
a set of legal rules that govern society. It encompasses representative government,
an independent judiciary, independent courts and proper systems of accountability.
These institutions, at both the national and international level, ensure that individuals
are treated equally before the law and prevent those in power from acting in an
unfettered or arbitrary way. To achieve this, the rule of law must also guarantee the
proper exercise of an individual’s human rights, as articulated in international human
rights law, and as set out in instruments such as the International Covenants on Civil
and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This international
human rights framework is the basis by which we judge human rights in other
countries. We are also committed to ensuring that our own standards match those
enshrined in international law.
The rule of law underpins democracy. We support democracy worldwide because
we believe it is the system of government that best provides for free and fair
societies. We recognise that countries develop at different paces and that our
support will need to be specific to the context. Establishing stable democracies
takes time, but supporting the development of democracy is in our national interest.
Societies that enjoy genuinely participative participatory democracy are more likely
to be secure and prosperous in the longer term, as democratic development
alleviates poverty, reduces corruption and creates the conditions to sustain
economic growth.

Democracy rests on respect for each individual in society, regardless of race,

religion, gender, sexual orientation or other status. We are committed to fighting all
forms of discrimination and intolerance. We place special emphasis on combating
the global rise of religious intolerance, including Islamophobia, antisemitism and
violence against Christian communities or other faiths. We continue to champion
women’s rights and gender equality against the discrimination that still exists in both
the developed and developing world. We will also promote freedom of expression as
an essential element of our work on democracy and all our human rights priorities.

But we will be judged by our actions and not just by our words. In order to achieve
our human rights objectives we provided £5 million from our Strategic Priority Fund
for Human Rights and Democracy in practical, real world support in 2010 to more
than 100 human rights and democracy projects in over 40 countries. These included
local-run initiatives to strengthen human rights mechanisms, improve criminal justice
systems, promote equality, improve electoral processes, promote and protect the
role of civil society and strengthen freedom of expression.

The Government’s efforts are focused where we believe the UK is best placed to
effect change and to shape international practice. Much of our work is in support of
locally based projects, run by local organisations that understand the situation on the
ground. But all of our embassies and high commissions have a responsibility to
monitor and raise human rights in their host countries and to take action on individual
cases of persecution or discrimination. We also lobby for changes in discriminatory
legislation and practices, including through the UN, the EU, the Commonwealth and
other multilateral organisations.

Democracy

Elections and election observation missions

Although elections are vital to democracy, they do not guarantee it. As was clear in
2010, elections can be a means of consolidating personal and party power and can
act as window dressing, conferring a stamp of legitimacy on an illegitimate regime.
This was certainly the case in Burma where the regime conducted elections in a
deeply repressive environment. Some 2,200 political prisoners, including opposition
leader Aung San Suu Kyi, remained under detention with the playing field firmly
skewed in the military-backed party’s favour.

Despite the risks, in 2010 we worked to support elections around the world and to
help them meet international standards. In December, Minister of State Jeremy
Browne, with Department for International Development (DFID) Minister Stephen
O’Brien, launched new guidance to Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and
DFID staff which provided practical advice on how to support elections overseas.
This builds on the work our embassies and high commissions already carry out.

In the run up to the elections in Ethiopia in May, our Embassy in Addis Ababa was
instrumental in facilitating agreement to an electoral code of conduct by the ruling
party and many opposition parties. The code was passed into Ethiopian law and
commits the parties to adhere to electoral good practice. The negotiations between
the political parties that led to the formation of the code helped build trust and
confidence, and reduced the risk of post-election violence. However, as the EU
election observation mission stated, while election day was peaceful, there were
serious shortcomings in terms of transparency of the process and the lack of a level
playing field for all the contesting parties.
The first local-run parliamentary elections since the 1960s were held in Afghanistan
on 18 September. Through the UN Development Programme we provided financial
and technical assistance to the Afghan Independent Election Commission and the
Electoral Complaints Commission both before and throughout the electoral process.

We also support election observation missions which can deter fraud and violence
and also provide informed recommendations on improving the electoral process. We
provide financial and technical assistance to every EU election observation mission.
In 2010 the EU sent observation missions to elections in Sudan, Burundi, Ethiopia,
Guinea, Tanzania and Cote d’Ivoire. In Tanzania, the findings of the EU observation
mission helped increase confidence in the electoral process and were acknowledged
by the Tanzanian government as providing valuable guidance on how to improve
their future electoral processes. In 2010 we also provided British observers to the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) election observation
missions to Ukraine, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Georgia,
Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

The Commonwealth plays a key role in promoting respect for democracy and
political values through its election observation work. In 2010, Commonwealth
observer groups observed elections in Sri Lanka, St Kitts and Nevis, Rwanda,
Solomon Islands and Tanzania. Their final reports on each of these provided
recommendations on how the electoral processes can be further improved. In
addition, an assessment team visited Bougainville (Papua New Guinea), and a
Commonwealth Secretariat staff team observed the referendum on their new
constitution in Kenya. We continued to provide financial and in-country support for
Commonwealth observer missions. More broadly, in 2010 the Commonwealth
created a network of national election management bodies to promote good
practices and facilitate opportunities for peer support, technical assistance and
capacity building for election management bodies across the Commonwealth.
Representatives of national election management bodies from across the
Commonwealth met for the first time in April in Accra, Ghana. We will help to
develop the network.
Domestic observation also plays an important role. During Egypt’s parliamentary
elections in November and December, domestic observers and civil society
organisations repeatedly raised their serious concerns about the elections and
preparations for them. They highlighted the lack of access for international monitors,
independent national monitors and candidate representatives to the counting
process; and the crack-down on the media in the run-up to the elections in an
attempt to limit media comment. In a number of cases, reported voting irregularities
and the harassment and arrest of opposition candidates and their supporters
amounted to serious interference in the electoral process. This called into question
the credibility of the results. The majority of the opposition parties and candidates
refused to participate in the second round of elections, citing these issues. We
strongly encouraged the Egyptian authorities to address these concerns. We remain
convinced that vigorous engagement in a fully transparent, democratic process is the
best path to ensure that Egypt realises its full potential.

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy

Established in 1992 to support the newly emerging democracies of Central and
Eastern Europe, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is the UK’s primary
organisation supporting the development of political parties and democratic
institutions around the world. The foundation is a non-departmental public body and
in 2010/11 received an annual grant in aid of £3.4 million from the FCO. The
foundation works with and through all the Westminster-based political parties, both
on a sister-party and cross-party basis, and is now active in Africa, the Middle East
and Asia, as well as in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

The foundation’s projects and programmes promote the values of multi-party

democracy, good governance, transparency and accountability. It has advanced
human rights by ensuring that political parties, parliaments and elected
representatives are able to uphold, protect and realise these rights through better
legislation, oversight and representation.

In Macedonia, building strong democratic institutions that will promote and protect
human rights is a vital step in Euro-Atlantic integration. But Macedonia’s key political
institutions lack an awareness and understanding of universal human rights
standards. The foundation has designed and delivered a tailored programme of
support to strengthen the capacity of the Macedonian parliament to uphold and
advance human rights, in partnership with the Macedonian Young Lawyers
Association and the UK’s International Bar Association. The foundation also
provided training for members and staff of the Macedonian Assembly’s Oversight
Committee on Human Rights. This was conducted by local human rights experts,
supported by an expert from the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights,
and focused on the Macedonian parliament’s role in upholding the rule of law and
implementing constitutional and human rights obligations.

In Uganda, the foundation has worked with the Uganda Women Parliamentary
Association over a number of years to support gender legislation advocacy. In 2009
the Uganda Women Parliamentary Association launched a common women’s
legislative agenda in the Ugandan parliament. As a result, four new progressive
gender bills were enacted in 2010, improving women’s rights and access to justice.

In Iraq, the foundation and its local and regional partners developed a think tank to
provide specialist advice in parliamentary affairs and public policies. The think tank
has since published policy papers on key issues relating to health, education,
transparency and women’s rights. Women’s political rights continue to be the focus
of the foundation’s work in the Middle East.

In Lebanon, the foundation supported the Lebanese parliament’s finance committee

in strengthening its budgetary oversight function, including through reviewing a new
government pensions bill. As a result of its findings, the Lebanese parliament
established a sub-committee where the pensions bill could be discussed and
analysed by representatives of all political parties and trade unions, with the
participation of the minister of labour. The bill was subsequently revised and will
improve social and economic rights for Lebanese citizens by providing a pensions
law for the first time, fully budgeted by the Lebanese government and consistent with
international standards.

In 2010, the foundation also partnered with the International Bar Association’s
Human Rights Institute under the Westminster Consortium programme, in Ukraine,
Georgia, Uganda, Mozambique and Lebanon and provided training on the rule of law
and human rights for parliamentarians and parliamentary staff. The programme’s
curriculum was developed with local partners in order to ensure that it reflects the
local political and human rights context. Workshops organised under the programme
provided an opportunity for participants to develop legislative best practice. In
Uganda, participants focused on the proposed anti-homosexuality bill. This was the
first time parliamentary staff had been challenged to debate the issue from a legal
and human rights perspective. As a result, the staff agreed that all future legislation
should only be presented to parliament if accompanied with a certificate stating that
it complied with Ugandan and other international human rights law. The clerk of the
Ugandan Human Rights Committee is following up this proposal with the Committee.

Based on the consortium’s curriculum, a handbook on the rule of law and human
rights will now be produced for parliamentarians and committees which the
foundation will share with other countries, including those of the East African
Community. The foundation will work with the East African Legislative Assembly, the
central legislative body of the East African Community, to provide a tailored
programme of support to assembly staff on how to use the handbook.

Human rights defenders

Human rights defenders are individuals or groups who act to promote or protect
human rights and include NGOs, lawyers, journalists, academics and politicians. In
many countries they and their families face the risk of harassment, arrest, detention
or death.

Human Rights Day 2010 focused on honouring those who defend human rights
around the world. To mark the day, William Hague highlighted “those who champion
the rights and freedoms of their fellow men and women, often at great personal
cost”, including Liu Xiaobo who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but remains
imprisoned in China; the 2,200 prisoners of conscience still detained in Burma; the
four people, including Le Cong Dinh, imprisoned in Vietnam for expressing their
opinions; the human rights activist Azimzhan Askarov, imprisoned for life in
Kyrgyzstan; and human rights defenders in Iran who are harassed, intimidated and
imprisoned, including the lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh.
We encourage governments to see human rights defenders as legitimate actors
working in the interests of their countries. Our support can have a real and positive
impact, particularly in countries where they face an unfriendly or intimidating
government. In 2010, ministers raised individual cases of persecution or
harassment, for example when Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Henry
Bellingham called upon the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo to
ensure a full, proper and transparent investigation into the death of the human rights
defender, Mr Floribert Chebeyain. This ministerial support is underpinned by our
embassies and high commissions. In Belarus, the Embassy worked with the EU
and the US to urge the government to uphold the rights of those detained on political
grounds following the flawed elections on 19 December. William Hague urged the
Belarusian authorities to ensure that all detainees were given access to adequate
medical care and legal representation. He also called on President Lukashenko and
his government to engage in a dialogue with political parties, NGOs and civil society
with a view to allowing them to fulfil their role in a democratic society. Some political
activists have since been released.

In Colombia indigenous and Afro-Colombian human rights advocates are routinely

subjected to threats and intimidation. Many organisations have told us that visible
contact with our Embassy improves their security. The Embassy has therefore set
out a high-profile programme of support which has included visits to threatened
communities in remote parts of the country such as Chocó and Nariño to draw
attention to their plight. Jeremy Browne visited Cartagena in August and met
representatives of the Association of Displaced Afro-Colombians. He condemned
threats against them and gave his public support for the organisation and its work.

Freedom of expression
Freedom of expression is fundamental to building democracy by allowing citizens to
challenge their government and make informed decisions. Journalists, bloggers and
media organisations must therefore be allowed to work freely and safely in line with
international standards.

In the first half of 2010, Reporters Without Borders handled the cases of more than
50 journalists who had fled their home countries. The organisation also reported a
surge in abductions: 51 reporters were kidnapped in 2010, up from 33 in 2009.
Throughout 2010 our embassies and high commissions have highlighted the need to
tackle impunity for attacks on journalists through: raising individual cases, and calling
for prompt and full investigations; supporting criminal justice mechanisms to deal
with attacks on journalists; promoting dialogue between the media, civil society and
the authorities; supporting effective and well-implemented freedom of information
legislation; and supporting broad access to the media and pluralism of media
ownership.

We have also used our membership of international institutions to promote freedom

of expression. At the OSCE Review Conference in Astana in November we called
for journalists, media workers, bloggers and media organisations to be allowed to
work freely and safely, and for OSCE participating states to demonstrate their
commitment to media freedom in line with OSCE standards. At the UN, the Deputy
Prime Minister Nick Clegg emphasised the importance of freedom of expression in
his speech to the General Assembly in September. We work closely with the UN
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank La Rue and have
encouraged him to focus his work on freedom of expression and the internet in 2011.
We have also encouraged technology companies to behave responsibly in terms of
supporting freedom of expression on the internet; for example Jeremy Browne met
representatives of Facebook in October and Google in November to explore what
more can be done to uphold international freedom of expression standards on the
internet.

We also lobbied governments for change on the ground, including by raising

individual cases. In Iran, blogger Hossein Ronaghi Maleki was sentenced to 15
years in prison in October. His sentence was upheld by the appeal court in
December. Another blogger, Hossein Derakhshan, was sentenced to 19-and-a-half
years in prison in September. Derakhshan is informally known as the “blogfather” of
Iran for his work in promoting blogging in Farsi. Between September and October,
FCO bloggers, including Minister for Europe David Lidington, highlighted his case
worldwide.
In Thailand, under state of emergency legislation, the Thai government placed
significant restrictions on freedom of expression in 2010. Community radio stations,
newspapers and magazines which supported opposition groups were closed down
and thousands of websites were blocked. In November, our Embassy in Bangkok
hosted a freedom of expression seminar to encourage public debate with journalists,
university students, NGOs and government officials. In 2011 the Embassy will hold
a similar seminar in Chiang Mai and launch a web-based forum to facilitate public
discussion.

We also provided practical support to freedom of expression projects in 2010. In

Nigeria we promoted the use of community radio through nationwide training events
and provided support to local groups wishing to set up community radio stations.
The Nigerian government is now committed to introducing broadcast licences for
community radio services.

In Egypt there was a growth in the number of independent papers, many of which
were critical of the government. However, prosecutions of internet bloggers and
activists increased. At the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review in
June 2010 we called on Egypt to amend its penal code to ensure freedom of
expression for journalists, publishers and bloggers. In December 2010 we raised our
concerns with the Egyptian government regarding media restrictions in the run up to
the Parliamentary elections which took place on 30 November and 5 December.

Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law

The death penalty

Global abolition of the death penalty is a priority for the Government. We oppose the
death penalty because we consider that its use undermines human dignity, that there
is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value, and that any miscarriage of justice
leading to its imposition is irreversible and irreparable.
The Government publicly launched its strategy for the abolition of the death penalty
in October, to coincide with the World Day Against the Death Penalty and the
European Day against the Death Penalty. The strategy sets out our policy on the
death penalty and provides guidance to our embassies and high commissions on
how they can support our efforts to:

• increase the number of abolitionist countries, or countries with a moratorium

on the use of the death penalty;
• restrict the use of the death penalty in retentionist countries and reduce the
numbers of executions; and
• ensure EU minimum standards are met in retentionist countries.

Our strategy also identifies those countries and regions where our embassies and
high commissions have been specifically tasked to implement the strategy. We
focus our efforts where we believe that we can achieve real results. We have
selected our five priority countries/regions for a number of reasons: China is the
most prolific user of the death penalty; Iran continues to use the death penalty for
juvenile offenders and is second only to China in the overall number of executions;
Belarus is the last country in Europe that retains this sanction; in the Caribbean,
although the number of executions is low, every English-speaking country retains the
death penalty on its books; and abolition in the US would send an important signal to
the rest of the world.

There have been some positive developments in 2010. Mongolia introduced a

moratorium on the use of the death penalty in January; Kyrgyzstan acceded to the
2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
which aims for abolition of the death penalty; and Guyana ended the mandatory
death penalty for most categories of murder. But there have also been setbacks.
Both South Korea and Singapore ruled the mandatory death penalty to be
constitutional, after unsuccessful legal challenges; Taiwan broke its five-year de-
facto moratorium by executing four death row inmates; and the prime minister of
Mauritius announced his intention to reintroduce the death penalty.
In 2010 we funded project work in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
We also funded the Death Penalty Project, an NGO with which we work closely. Its
work in 2010 on the case of Godfrey Mutiso led to the mandatory death penalty
being ruled unconstitutional in Kenya, following similar work which led to the 2009
ruling in Uganda that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional, resulting in
167 death sentences being commuted to life imprisonment. The Death Penalty
Project also ran a successful workshop in Barbados, bringing together legal experts
from across the Caribbean to consider the issues and challenges that need to be
addressed in order to further restrict the death penalty in the region.

In China we provided capacity building for legislative reform. A revision to China’s

criminal code in 2011 is likely to reduce the number of capital crimes from 68 to 55.
This will be implemented by a restructuring of the criminal punishment system. In
addition, on 1 July China introduced new evidence guidance on death penalty cases.
Along with the EU, we are the main foreign donor working closely with the Chinese
authorities on reform and eventual abolition of the death penalty. We also fund two
death penalty-related projects as part of a wider EU programme.

The UN plays an important role in creating momentum towards global abolition. In

December we co-sponsored the cross-regional UN General Assembly resolution on
the Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty and lobbied actively for support.
This resolution calls upon states to establish a moratorium on executions with a view
to abolishing the death penalty. The steady increase of support for this resolution,
previously adopted in 2007 and 2008, reinforces the international trend towards
global abolition. We lobbied Mongolia and Gambia, both of which voted to support
the resolution for the first time. We also raised our concerns about the death penalty
during the Universal Periodic Review process in the UN Human Rights Council,
including, for example, recommending to the US that it establish a moratorium on the
use of the death penalty at the federal and state level as a first step towards
abolition.

Bilaterally we raised the death penalty directly with governments in a number of

countries and regions, including China, the US, the Caribbean and Japan. Where a
UK national faces the death penalty abroad, we use all appropriate influence to
prevent their execution. We also work with the EU to lobby other governments and
to raise individual cases of third country nationals facing the death penalty.

Torture prevention
Our work on torture prevention includes encouraging states to sign and ratify the
international instruments prohibiting and preventing torture; where appropriate,
raising specific cases where allegations of torture are made; strengthening the
institutional capacity of the FCO to tackle torture by ensuring that all staff are alert to
allegations of mistreatment in their host country; and supporting reform in institutions
overseas where torture is most likely to occur, for example in prisons and other
places of detention. In September, we hosted a one-day seminar with the Arts and
Humanities Research Council which brought together British and European
academics and NGO experts on torture prevention. On the basis of this seminar, we
will launch an updated global torture prevention strategy in 2011.

The main international instruments which prohibit and prevent torture are the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on
Human Rights and the UN Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol.
The Convention against Torture obliges states to take measures to prevent acts of
torture in any territory under their jurisdiction and to ensure that all acts of torture are
criminalised. Under the Optional Protocol, signatories must establish independent
safeguards and checks in places of detention so that officials cannot mistreat
detainees without being brought to account. We encourage countries to ratify the
Optional Protocol and to establish national preventive mechanisms to monitor places
of detention. In Nigeria, we supported a project to improve the documentation of
torture and to achieve redress for victims which led to case reviews and prosecutions
and resulted in a group of core volunteer lawyers and medical practitioners being set
up to look at cases. Our support for the Geneva-based NGO, the Association for the
Prevention of Torture, helped maintain momentum towards establishing a national
preventive mechanism in Kazakhstan and in Kyrgyzstan, and in Nepal their work
led to the National Human Rights Commission adopting new guidelines on detention
monitoring. We also worked with them in Ghana, Lebanon, Paraguay, Senegal and
Tajikistan.
We continued to lobby states to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol. As of 31
December, 57 states had become party to it. Seven states ratified the Optional
Protocol during 2010: Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador,
Gabon, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Togo and a further three states signed it:
Bulgaria, Panama and Zambia. In October, the monitoring body established under
the Optional Protocol, the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture, grew from
10 to 25 members (its maximum) as a result of the increased number of ratifications.
This will significantly increase the capacity of the sub-committee to conduct
monitoring visits to places of detention. The Government has pledged an additional
£520,000 in 2011 to the Special Fund for Torture Prevention held by the Office of the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which will help finance the work of the
sub-committee in providing expertise on establishing national preventive
mechanisms and in providing assistance to countries on implementing the
recommendations of the sub-committee.

We are also strengthening our institutional capability to tackle torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. We are updating the guidance for all our staff on
how to report allegations and concerns they may have about suspected torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that occur overseas so that they can be acted
upon appropriately. The updated guidance will be published and issued to staff in
2011.

Prison reform
Prison conditions in many countries do not meet human rights standards.
Independent oversight of prisons is important to maintain prison standards and
prevent the mistreatment of prisoners. In 2010, we worked with the International
Centre for Prison Studies to bring prison management practices in China towards
international human rights standards. Prison construction standards have been
updated and in 2011 the prison law will be revised. We also funded a project with
the Great Britain China Centre to establish independent monitoring of police
detention centres in China. After a successful pilot programme, two more lay visitor
schemes were launched in October. In Nigeria we funded a project to develop a
new curriculum for prison service training resulting in a marked improvement in
prison management by those who attended the pilot management and leadership
course.

International justice system

The Government is committed to the principle that there should be no impunity for
the most serious international crimes. We are unique in being actively engaged with
all six existing international criminal tribunals: as a State Party to the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court; as a member of the Security Council, which
oversees the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda;
and as a major donor and member of the management bodies of the voluntary-
funded tribunals for Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Lebanon.

International Criminal Court

Since the International Criminal Court was set up in 2002, it has established itself as
a corner-stone of international justice. The UK has had a long-standing reputation
for promoting and supporting the work of the Court. In 2010, the UK provided
political and practical support to the Court for its ongoing cases and investigations.
For example, we welcomed the Kenyan government’s commitment to co-operate
fully with the Court’s investigation and provided £200,000 to support measures to
protect and relocate vulnerable witnesses. We consistently encouraged the Kenyan
government to stand by its obligations under the Rome Statute and as a UN member
state. We made clear our disappointment that President Bashir of Sudan was
allowed to visit Kenya in defiance of the Court’s arrest warrants for war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide.

We also supported the growth and consolidation of the Court at the first-ever Review
Conference in Kampala in June. We made three pledges at the conference, setting
out our commitment to cooperate with the Court; deliver justice to the victims of
crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction; and promote wider ratification of the Rome
Statute. We also donated £40,000 to the Court’s Trust Fund for Victims, which
assists victims to rebuild their lives and communities. We will announce a further
substantial donation to this fund in 2011. We will also explore opportunities to
provide further support for victims and for developing national capacity and action to
combat impunity.
The Review Conference also considered amendments to the original Rome Statute,
which has not been revised since it was first agreed in 1998. States Parties
considered including a definition of the crime of aggression and establishing the
conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction over this crime; and
including the use of certain weapons in a non-international armed conflict as a war
crime, in particular bullets that flatten on impact and toxic gases. We will now
consider whether to ratify the amendments agreed at the Review Conference.

Throughout 2010, the UK participated actively in working groups in New York and
The Hague to support and develop management and oversight of the Court to
ensure that it continues to mature as an efficient and effective institution. We led
negotiations at the International Criminal Court’s Assembly of States Parties in
December to agree a new independent oversight mechanism, as part of a robust and
transparent management system.

The year 2011 is likely to see the first judgment from the Court, with two other
ongoing trials continuing and the possibility of three other trials starting. Further trial
and pre-trial activity is likely to take place on the Court’s new investigation in Libya,
which was opened on 3 March 2011 following a unanimous decision of the UN
Security Council to refer the Libya situation to the ICC. We will work closely with key
partners to ensure that the Court continues to receive international support and
cooperation and to combat attempts to undermine it.

International criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

In 2010, the UK played a leading role in the UN Security Council tribunals working
group for the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
In December, after three years of discussions, the UN Security Council adopted a
resolution to safeguard the legacy of the tribunals, once they have completed their
trials and appeals, including by ensuring that any remaining fugitives are not allowed
to escape justice; that witnesses remain protected, and that appropriate
arrangements are made for the management of the tribunals’ archives.
We also offered political and practical support to both tribunals, including ensuring
that full cooperation with the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia remains a key
precondition for progress towards the EU for the countries of the Western Balkans.

In Serbia we funded a project by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights to change
attitudes towards the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and to promote awareness of
war crimes. This included public surveys, conferences and a publication in Serbia,
Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Further conferences in Zagreb and Sarajevo
are planned.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UK supported a number of activities in the justice

sector including a project aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the State
Prosecutor’s Office in dealing with Srebrenica-related war crimes, through seconding
prosecutors and legal officers, as well as through capacity-building programmes.
We also supported the International Commission on Missing Persons to continue its
work with the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and domestic courts, providing DNA
reports and expert testimony for war crimes cases.

In Kosovo we seconded expert staff to EULEX Kosovo, the EU Rule of Law Mission,
including two judges, three prosecutors and the head of the organised crime unit.
The Kosovo Special Prosecution Office, under supervision of EULEX prosecutors,
filed three war crimes indictments, one of which led to a conviction and seven years’
imprisonment. EULEX also increased its cooperation with the Serbian authorities
and the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in investigating ongoing war crimes.

Extraordinary Chambers of the Court of Cambodia

In July, judgment was delivered in Case 1 at the Court. The defendant, Kaing Guek
Eav, also known as Duch, was found guilty of crimes against humanity and was
sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment. The appeal hearing will take place in March
2011. Throughout the course of Duch’s trial we have funded a TV series in
Cambodia which has provided information to more than 2 million rural Cambodians
each week on the trial’s proceedings. Our Ambassador was present at the reading
of the verdict and embassy staff joined community members in the provinces to
watch it on television. As Jeremy Browne said upon its announcement, the verdict
“will play an important role in helping Cambodians come to terms with the past as
they move forward with national reconciliation”.

A closing order in Case 2 at the Court against the four remaining senior leaders of
the Khmer Rouge regime was signed in September. This trial is expected to
commence in mid-2011 and will address charges of genocide, crimes against
humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and offences under the 1956
Cambodian criminal code.

We also provided practical support to the Court. We supported it in its efforts to

raise funds, which are pledged on a voluntary basis. In December we contributed
£215,000 to the Court, bringing our total contribution to date to around £2.3 million,
and we also provided additional resources for court monitoring and training for the
Office of the Co-Prosecutors and the Victims Support Unit.

Special Court for Sierra Leone

Securing funding for the Special Court, also pledged on a voluntary basis, grew
increasingly difficult throughout 2010. The UK contributed more than £2 million but
extensive appeals to donors for further essential funds yielded insufficient results
and the Special Court faced critical financial shortfalls. In response, we worked to
secure emergency UN funding for the Special Court which will move it onto a more
secure financial footing for 2011. We also played a key role in securing a provisional
agreement with the government of Sierra Leone on a cost effective Residual
Mechanism for the Special Court, which should guarantee that essential functions,
such as witness protection and security of the archives, can continue effectively.

With trial activity in Freetown already completed, the only remaining trial at the
Special Court is that of Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president. This is taking
place in The Hague. Mr Taylor is charged with crimes against humanity and war
crimes in Sierra Leone. November saw the closure of the defence case in the Taylor
trial and a verdict is now expected in the summer of 2011. If convicted, Mr Taylor
will serve his sentence in the UK under a 2007 sentence enforcement agreement.
Special Tribunal for Lebanon
During 2010, the tribunal continued its investigative phase and prepared for the start
of judicial activity. On 17 January 2011 the Prosecutor submitted the first indictment
to the pre-trial judge. The UK announced a further £1 million funding for the tribunal
for 2011, which brought our total contribution up to £2.3 million.

Equality and Non-discrimination

Freedom of religion or belief

The Government strongly supports the right to freedom of religion or belief as set out
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. We also encourage the full implementation of the 1981 UN
Declaration on the Elimination of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion
or Belief. Our embassies and high commissions routinely raise concerns about
freedom of religion or belief with host governments and take action on individual
cases where persecution or discrimination has occurred. They also lobby for
changes in discriminatory practices and laws.

We are concerned about the ongoing conflict in Plateau State in Nigeria where
Christian and Muslim communities suffered terrible loss of life in 2010 in violence
driven by underlying social, political, economic and religious factors. We made clear
to the government of Nigeria at ministerial level that the perpetrators of these crimes
must be brought to justice and that more must be done to find long-term solutions.
Henry Bellingham raised this issue during his meeting with Vice President Namadi
Sambo in October. The High Commissioner discussed these issues in September
with Chief Solomon Lar, chair of the Presidential Committee on the Jos Crisis, and
we have continued to encourage the government of Nigeria to consider
implementation of the committee’s report. Our High Commission, together with
DFID, continues to explore further ways in which we can help the process of
reconciliation between the religious and ethnic communities in Plateau State,
including by encouraging the involvement of NGOs and governmental, traditional
and religious leaders.
In Egypt, the constitution provides for freedom of belief and members of non-Muslim
groups recognised by the government are generally able to worship without
harassment. However, Christians and members of the Baha’i faith, which the
government does not recognise, face personal and collective discrimination in many
areas of daily life. At Egypt’s Universal Periodic Review we called on the Egyptian
government to accept and implement recommendations to end legal provisions and
policies which discriminate against members of religious minorities and to adopt a
new law for the construction and repair of places of worship for all religious groups.

We have also raised our concerns about violence involving Egypt’s religious
communities, such as the fatal shooting of seven people outside a church in Naga
Hammadi on 7 January 2010 and the bomb attack on a Coptic Church in Alexandria
on 1 January 2011. In a statement, Minister for the Middle East and North Africa
Alistair Burt sent condolences to those affected and stressed the importance of
promoting tolerance in the face of the attack, which we believe was designed to
provoke violence between Egypt’s Christian and Muslim communities.
It is important that the political process which follows the resignation of Hosni
Mubarak on 11 February 2011 includes all parts of Egyptian society. We will
continue to urge the Egyptian authorities to promote religious tolerance and revisit
policies which discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion.

The domestic legislative framework on religion in Laos is such that only registered
denominations may operate legally. For Protestants, in practice, this means that
only those under the umbrella of the Laos Evangelical Church (LEC) or Seventh Day
Adventists are legal. This situation leaves many other Christians vulnerable to the
complexities of church politics and LEC Party relations, which fails to protect their
freedom of religion. There is a preference for Buddhism in the constitution and there
continues to be cultural antagonism towards non-Buddhist religious activities,
particularly Christianity, which is often portrayed as a foreign religion. In May, at the
Universal Periodic Review of Laos, we called on the Lao authorities to guarantee the
right to religious freedom and to ensure state officials were aware of their duty to
protect this right.
Freedom to practise religion in Azerbaijan has been affected by a change in
legislation in 2009 that required all religions to register with the authorities to retain
their status. Thirty communities and religions have still not been approved, including
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Our Embassy in Baku remains in close contact with a number
of religious and civil society groups on these issues and we have raised these
concerns with the Azerbaijani government.

We continue to urge the government of Turkey to take positive steps to resolve a

range of concerns, including difficulties with opening seminaries for the training of
religious figures and establishing places of worship for minority religious groups.
The Turkish government has taken steps to address these issues by introducing a
new law on foundations which facilitates the ownership of property by minority
groups, but there have been problems with implementation of this law.

In April, in Kyrgyzstan, the government of President Bakiev, which had introduced a

prescriptive religious law in 2009, was overthrown following a period of unrest. A
provisional government subsequently took power and promised to restore
democracy and human rights in the country, but members of some minority religious
organisations have continued to experience difficulties. During the UN Universal
Periodic Review of Kyrgyzstan in May, we encouraged the provisional government to
ensure freedom of religion and belief, in particular amongst minority and non-
traditional groups. The UK continues to monitor events closely and we will raise our
concerns both bilaterally and through the EU with the new government that was
formed in December.

Indonesia’s constitution provides for “all persons the right to worship according to
his or her own religion or belief”. In practice, all Indonesians are required to identify
themselves with one of six faiths: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism,
Buddhism and Confucianism. Although Indonesia has a strong tradition of religious
diversity and tolerance, there was a rise in the number of attacks on places of
religious worship with links to minority faiths during 2010. We frequently raise
freedom of religion with the government of Indonesia. In a meeting with the
Indonesian foreign minister at the Asia–Europe Meeting Summit in Brussels on 4
October, Nick Clegg stressed the need for Indonesia to address concerns about
religious freedom in the light of attacks on Christians and the Ahmadiyya community.
We also pushed for freedom of religion to be included as a substantive item on the
agenda of the first EU–Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue on 29 June. We will
continue to call for religious tolerance across Indonesia and support the efforts of
those working to promote pluralism and freedom of religion.

In December at the European Council, and in response to recent attacks against

religious communities, EU foreign ministers agreed that the EU should do more to
promote religious freedom, including through assessing the implementation of the
2009 EU Council Conclusions on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the inclusion of a
specific section on religious freedom in the EU’s annual human rights report. We
welcomed this outcome and will continue to press the EU for more effective action to
tackle discrimination and violence against all religious groups.

In July, the three Personal Representatives on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination of

the OSCE Chairman-in-Office visited the UK. Their visit included meetings with a
number of parliamentarians to discuss Parliament’s role in combating religious
intolerance in the UK, as well as with government officials and NGOs who work on
interfaith and religious issues.

At the UN, the EU tabled its resolution on “the elimination of all forms of religious
intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief”. This resolution calls for
member states to take a number of measures to protect and promote freedom of
religion or belief, including through constitutional or legislative reform, providing
protection to places and sites of worship, and ensuring non-discriminatory access to
a range of public services. We were disappointed that we were not able to secure
language on the freedom to change one’s religion or belief, but pleased that the final
resolution was co-sponsored by more than 60 countries.

Some countries have continued to argue that in response to religious intolerance, the
international community should adopt a new international legal standard on
“defamation of religions” which would provide international legal protection to
religions. We believe that this approach is inconsistent with the international human
rights legal framework, which exists to protect individuals and should not seek to
protect concepts or specific belief systems from criticism. Protecting religions in this
way risks considerably diminishing the right to freedom of expression, as it would
limit the ability to question, debate or criticise others’ religious beliefs. We believe
that international human rights law already strikes the right balance between the
individual’s right to express him or herself freely including through the manifestation
of religious beliefs, and the need for the state to limit this right in certain
circumstances, and are concerned that the concept of “defamation of religions” puts
in danger the very openness and tolerance that allows people of different faiths to
co-exist and to practise their faiths without fear. For these reasons we opposed the
resolutions tabled at the UN in 2010 which promoted this concept. We will continue
to do so in 2011.

Women’s rights
Discrimination and violence against women and girls occur in every country in the
world. By preventing women and girls from benefiting fully from health, education
and other services, gender inequality increases maternal mortality, vulnerability to
HIV and exploitation, and undermines global security and development. Gender
equality and women’s empowerment is a key priority for the Government. We
remain a driving force in advancing women’s rights internationally through our work
to eliminate discrimination and violence against women and girls and by encouraging
other countries to implement international gender equality commitments.

Women’s rights is an area where our domestic record can help promote our values
internationally. To coincide with the UN International Day for the Elimination of
Violence against Women on 25 November, the Government launched a new strategy
entitled “Call to End Violence against Women and Girls”, which for the first time
includes international work. The appointment on 25 November of Minister of
Equalities Lynne Featherstone as the government champion to tackle violence
against women and girls overseas further reinforced this commitment. Her role will
be to provide policy coherence and coordination across UK government
departments, represent the UK overseas and encourage all government ministers to
ensure that this issue remains high on their domestic and international agendas.
International institutions have a vital role to play in advancing women’s rights. The
UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is a
legally binding international treaty designed to end gender inequality and promote
women’s empowerment. The UK ratified the convention in 1986. In 2011 the UK will
submit its report on the measures we have taken to comply with our obligations
under the convention. The Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action, adopted at the
Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, embodies the commitment
of the international community to the advancement of women, ensuring that a gender
perspective is reflected in all policies and programmes at the national, regional and
international levels. The year 2010 was the 15-year review of the Beijing Declaration
and Platform of Action, undertaken by the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
The review recognised that although the international community has made
advances in women’s rights in the 15 years since its adoption, many challenges
remain to women achieving the full enjoyment of their human rights.

In September the UK welcomed the adoption at the Human Rights Council of the
resolution on “The Elimination of Laws and Practices that Discriminate against
Women.” The resolution agreed to establish a new expert working group of five
independent and geographically representative experts who will conduct country
visits, make recommendations on best practice, and highlight laws and practices that
violate women’s rights.

The creation of a new UN agency for women, UN Women, in July is a welcome

development. UN Women merges four existing UN agencies on gender equality and
women’s empowerment into one agency to provide a more coherent and coordinated
approach to women’s rights. In September the UN Secretary-General appointed
Michelle Bachelet, the former Chilean president, as the new head of UN Women.
Negotiations to agree the size and composition of the governance body of UN
Women, the executive board, were lengthy. We supported the final board that
includes a diverse representation of countries. The UK will be represented on the
board for five out of the next six years. We will actively engage in the development
of UN Women during our tenure.
The UK was keenly involved during 2010 in the development of the draft Council of
Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and
domestic violence. Negotiations on this convention will continue in 2011. In
September, the UK welcomed the adoption of the five-year EU Strategy for Equality
between Women and Men to promote equality in Europe which sets specific
measures to tackle inequality and gender-based violence.

Our embassies also have an important role in promoting women’s rights. In addition
to lobbying on women’s rights, they also supported a number of projects and
initiatives. In November our Embassy in Rabat, Morocco, in partnership with a local
NGO, launched a project to teach women in the Berkane region environmental
sustainability and income-generating skills. In Sierra Leone our Embassy supported
an initiative to broadcast radio programmes against sexual violence.

Children’s rights
Our embassies and high commissions promote children’s rights internationally. The
High Commission in Jamaica supported the missing children’s support programme
to reduce the number of missing children by raising awareness through public
education, training, social work personnel, parent support activities and school safety
programmes. The High Commission also part-funded a project to conduct a review
of child protection procedures in relation to the initial disclosure of sexual abuse, and
the investigation, prosecution and trial of such cases. In the Matoto and Ratoma
districts of Guinea we co-funded, with the French Embassy in Conakry, a project to
combat drug addiction and trafficking among young people. The British Embassy in
Rabat funded a project to empower young people in Morocco through financial
autonomy. This project will help around 70 youths from the disadvantaged regions
of Kenitra and Casablanca to generate a stable source of income by training them in
business skills, as well as providing mentoring in the set-up and initial operation of a
small business. The project will conclude in March 2011.

At the international level, the Government was actively involved during 2010 in
negotiations on the drafting of a third Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child. The Optional Protocol will provide a communication and
complaints mechanism under which children will be able to bring allegations of
violations directly to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. These
discussions will continue throughout 2011.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights

The Government is committed to combating violence and discrimination against
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people as an integral part of its
international human rights work. As David Lidington stated in his message to mark
the International Day Against Homophobia on 17 May “Everybody, including gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender people should be free to enjoy the rights and
freedoms to which people of all nations are entitled.” Unfortunately this view is not
universally shared. Same-sex relations remain criminalised in more than 70
countries, while discrimination against LGBT people because of their sexual
orientation or gender identity continues to occur, even in countries where laws exist
to protect them. Where such illegality and inequality exists, LGBT people worldwide
continue to suffer persecution and human rights violations, while stigma and
discrimination of sexual minorities helps to fuel the HIV/AIDS epidemic as vulnerable
groups are marginalised and unable to access prevention, treatment and care
services.

We are at the forefront of international efforts to promote the human rights of LGBT
people. Through our embassies and high commissions and through international
organisations, including the UN, EU and the Council of Europe, we promote LGBT
equality and push for lasting change. In June, the Government published “Working
for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality” to guide our future work both
at home and abroad. This will ensure a more coordinated approach across the
Government and includes an unequivocal commitment to support gay rights
internationally.

There was some progress on LGBT rights globally in 2010. Several countries,
including Argentina, Iceland, Ireland and Portugal passed legislation which gave
legal recognition to same-sex couples. But there were also concerns. In Uganda,
the High Commission raised our concerns about a private member’s bill that would, if
introduced into law, further criminalise homosexuality in Uganda. In the Democratic
Republic of Congo, we pressed the government against introducing legislation to
criminalise homosexuality. And in Malawi, pressure by the UK helped to secure the
presidential pardon of a gay couple sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.

Our embassies also supported the efforts of civil society organisations to change
laws and social attitudes by supporting local Gay Pride and anti-discrimination
events. In China, the Embassy hosted an event attended by more than 100 civil
society representatives, journalists, diplomats and international donor organisations
in support of a local LGBT organisation that had produced a short film on the role of
the media in representing LGBT issues in China. In Nepal, our Embassy spoke out
publicly in support of the organisers of the local Gay Pride march, and embassy staff
took part. In Poland, the British Ambassador hosted a group of young British
EuroPride participants at his residence. In Hungary, the Embassy initiated and
issued a joint statement of support for the Pride festival with 16 other like-minded
embassies and hosted lectures, working groups and a photo exhibition during the
festival. And in Lithuania, we co-hosted a reception for LGBT groups in honour of
Baltic Pride. Feedback from our embassies, LGBT organisations and local media
tells us that our support has had a real and positive impact on local LGBT
communities and human rights defenders, and that our contributions have helped
advance debate forward on the issue in many countries.

In the Council of Europe, the Government strongly supported a recommendation on

measures to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender
identity that was adopted in March. The recommendation was not only the first
regional instrument specifically to address discrimination against LGBT people but it
was also groundbreaking in the broad range of rights covered. It contained specific
recommendations to Council of Europe member states on how to improve their
legislation, policies, and practices to address discrimination against LGBT people.
At the end of the year, the Council of Europe was concluding a comparative study,
launched by the Commissioner for Human Rights, on the situation of LGBT people
within Council of Europe countries. This one-year study, which we have part funded,
will result in a comprehensive socio-legal analysis of the situation of LGBT people in
all Council of Europe member states.
Within the EU, we worked closely with other EU countries and NGOs, to help the
Spanish Presidency of the EU develop an EU LGBT toolkit which was adopted by
EU ministers in July. The LGBT toolkit will be used by EU diplomats and
international and civil society organisations to promote and protect the rights of
LGBT people throughout the EU's foreign policy agenda.

At the UN, the Government worked with like-minded countries to increase

international recognition of LGBT rights. We lobbied other countries to ensure that
an LGBT NGO was accredited to work within the UN. We also worked closely with
the US and EU partners to ensure a reference requiring countries to investigate
killings on the grounds of sexual orientation was included in a resolution on
“extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”. As Jeremy Browne said following
the adoption of the resolution: “It is vital that States provide the same level of
recognition and protection to all its citizens on an equal basis”. Through the UN’s
Universal Periodic Review system we also examined the human rights records of
member states towards LGBT people, focusing in particular on those countries
where homosexuality remains illegal. In November, for example, we encouraged the
government of Jamaica to promote tolerance and end discrimination against LGBT
people and recommended that Malawi should review the provisions of its penal code
that discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Disability rights
The Government is committed to working towards a world where disabled people
enjoy their full human rights and have an equal access to opportunities. We support
disability rights internationally by promoting the universal ratification and
implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
which we believe is the benchmark against which countries, including the UK, should
be measured. The convention, which 98 countries including the UK have now
ratified, sets the minimum standards for protecting and safeguarding a full range of
civil, political, social and economic rights for disabled people, and covers all areas of
life including access to justice, personal mobility, health, education, work and
recreation. In line with the reporting obligations set out in the convention, the
Government will report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities in 2011 about how the convention is being implemented in the UK, and
what progress has been made. And to coincide with the UN Human Rights Council
in March 2011, our mission in Geneva is planning an exhibition to showcase the
Government’s work to support disabled people through the London 2012 Paralympic
Games. The exhibition will demonstrate how sport can be used to promote
inclusiveness and tolerance, and empower disabled people.

In 2010, we played a full part in discussions on a code of conduct to allow EU

ratification of the convention. The code of conduct, which was adopted by EU
ministers in December, sets out the arrangements for representation, monitoring and
reporting where there is overlap between the areas of competence of the EU and
member states. With the code of conduct in place, the EU formally ratified the
convention in January 2011. For the first time in its history, the EU has become a
party to an international human rights treaty in its own right, and is the first
intergovernmental organisation to do so. In November the EU also adopted a new
“European Disability Strategy 2010–2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free
Europe.” This will complement and support actions by EU member states on
disability policies and focus on eliminating the barriers that exist for disabled people
within the EU through eight main areas for action – accessibility, participation,
equality, employment, education and training, social protection, health, and external
action. We will work to ensure that implementation of the strategy focuses on those
areas which can make a real difference to achieving equality for disabled people
across Europe.

In addition to our work through international organisations, we also supported a

number of national projects to support disability rights in 2010. As Jeremy Browne
said in his statement to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities on 3
December: “I am committed to ensuring that the UK keeps its own promises on
human rights, through work to support and protect the rights of disabled people
globally.”

In Russia we funded a project to help local NGOs advocate for the implementation
of the UN convention in Russia. In India, we worked with civil society organisations
to raise the profile of disability issues. Their work helped lead to important changes
in the Indian 2011 census. For the first time, the census will register all people with
disabilities and therefore help the Indian government better target their needs. In
Jordan, we supported a project to enhance the capacity of the Higher Council for the
Affairs of Persons with Disabilities to set and monitor professional standards for
disability services. In 2010 we also funded a one-year project by the Mental
Disability Advocacy Center to develop practical guidelines for governments on
establishing and bolstering the effectiveness of independent national bodies to
monitor the implementation of the UN convention. These guidelines will help to
ensure that countries which have ratified the convention establish the necessary
mechanisms to promote, protect and monitor its implementation. Currently only a
handful of states, including the UK, have officially designated their monitoring body.

Indigenous rights
The Government works through the UN, EU and our embassies to improve the
situation of indigenous people internationally, including by giving political support to
indigenous issues and communities around the world. In Guatemala, our Embassy
is a member of the EU Filter Group on Human Rights, whose role includes promoting
and protecting the rights of members of indigenous communities. In Peru we funded
a project through a local organisation, Instituto de Defensa Legal, to investigate and
seek justice for women subjected to sexual violence during the internal armed
conflict from 1980 to 2000, the majority of whom were from the indigenous Quechua-
speaking communities of the Ayacucho, Huancavelica and Apurimac regions. In
Malaysia, as part of the EU’s year of work to promote the rights of indigenous
people, embassy officials visited several indigenous communities to discuss rights,
religious conversion, language and education.

Dalits
The UK works with foreign governments to promote the inclusion of Dalits into
society and to support the efforts of civil society and NGOs in raising awareness of
the situation of Dalits worldwide.

In India, Dalits have historically been at the bottom of the Hindu caste system. The
Indian constitution (1950) abolished discrimination on the basis of caste and contains
provisions to reserve public sector jobs and places in education for Dalits. There are
also many successful people in India from the Dalit community. Nevertheless, many
Dalits still continue to face discrimination in their everyday lives, particularly in rural
areas of India where the caste system still prevails.

We welcome the ongoing measures that the Indian government has taken to
address discrimination, and will continue to discuss these issues with the relevant
Indian authorities. We have also supported the Indian government’s efforts to help
ensure equal treatment and access to services for the most disadvantaged
communities in India, including Dalits, through a number of projects. The Indian
government will carry out a caste-based census in 2011 which will help it to target
assistance and employment opportunities more accurately at disadvantaged groups.

In Nepal, our Embassy provided support for a consultation exercise which brought
together 235 grassroots NGOs, including organisations representing Dalit rights, to
assist in the preparation of a shadow report for Nepal’s Universal Periodic Review at
the UN’s Human Rights Council. The Embassy also funded a Dalit representative to
attend the review session to gain first-hand exposure to UN mechanisms.

Racism
Much of the Government’s international work to tackle racism in 2010 has been at
the global and regional levels and has focused on building support to address all
forms of racial intolerance. Through the EU we pursued a policy of fighting all
manifestations of racism and xenophobia both within the Union and in the EU’s
external actions. With EU partners we used political dialogues with third countries to
raise our concerns. These issues were also integrated into the EU’s cooperation
strategies. For example, under European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans,
partner countries commit themselves to cooperate to combat all forms of
discrimination, religious intolerance and racism. Under its European Instrument for
Democracy and Human Rights, the EU supports the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights and its programme to support the implementation
of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the outcome of the World
Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobic and Related
Intolerance, held in South Africa in 2001. Under the same financial instrument, the
EU gives support to various NGOs in their work on racism, xenophobia and non-
discrimination.
At the UN in October, the UK was instrumental in finding consensus during the
October meeting of the intergovernmental working group on the implementation of
the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. During the March and June
meetings of the UN Human Rights Council, the UK supported resolutions dealing
with racism and sport and the implementation of the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action. At the adoption of the resolution on racism and sport, we
spoke out strongly about our commitment to tackle racism whilst showcasing some
of the work currently underway in the UK, such as football’s Kick it Out Campaign
and Sporting Equals programme. As we made clear, we want to see an active world
that is free from racial discrimination because it is fair and right, and because the
whole of society will benefit.

In December the UK voted against the UN resolution on global efforts for the total
elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and
the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action. We were particularly concerned about the late addition of a
proposal by the main sponsor, South Africa, for a high-level meeting of the UN
General Assembly in September 2011 to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the
adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. We recognise that it
is common practice for the UN to convene meetings at frequent periodic intervals to
commemorate the adoption of its various social and human-rights-related agendas,
such as the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. We were therefore ready
to agree to a limited commemorative event. But in light of the lengthy and difficult
2009 Durban Review Conference, we considered the proposed size and scope of
the 2011 event to be inappropriate and likely to undermine potentially more cohesive
international action to combat racism.

Throughout 2011 we will work to ensure that the commemorative meeting will
address all forms of racism, including antisemitism, and will not provide a platform for
the type of offensive antisemitic rhetoric and behaviour that undermined the World
Conference against Racism in 2001 in Durban as well as the 2009 Durban Review
Conference. We will also work hard to ensure that any outcome from the September
2011 meeting includes a clear statement on the need to further the fight against
antisemitism as part of wider efforts to combat racism.
Roma
The Government remains concerned about the violence and discrimination Roma
continue to face in many parts of Europe. While the primary responsibility for
promoting their inclusion lies with individual countries, we believe that international
cooperation also has an important role to play. In 2010, our embassies across
Europe helped to promote the rights of Roma people. For example, in Hungary, the
Embassy held a fund-raising event for the European Roma Rights Centre which
helped to raise awareness as well as generate significant funds for the centre. In
Romania, the Embassy brought an expert from Bolton City Council who specialises
in integrating Roma and traveller communities in the UK to speak at a Roma
conference, and also hosted an event on Roma discrimination to mark the
International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The issue of the integration of Roma communities was brought into focus in the
summer of 2010 through the expulsion of Roma from France. This led to a drive for
action by countries across the EU. The UK lobbied through its network of embassies
and high commissions on issues such as access to education, employment and
housing for Roma communities, particularly in countries with large Roma
populations. In June we agreed a set of Council Conclusions which pushed for
greater social and economic integration of the Roma through EU and national
policies. We also worked practically with other EU member states to combat issues
such as organised crime and human trafficking, to which Roma communities are
vulnerable. Since 2008, the UK–Romania Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has
disrupted the trafficking of more than 1,000 children from Romania. While primary
responsibility for promoting Roma inclusion rests with EU member states, at EU
level, the UK has supported the Commission Task Force to ensure the effective and
transparent use of existing EU funds to address the problems faced by the Roma.
We will continue to work bilaterally with EU member states to promote this best
practice.

At the OSCE Review Conference in October, a working session on tolerance and

non-discrimination discussed what else could be done to implement the OSCE’s
Action Plan on Roma and Sinti. We supported EU recommendations to make the
review of the action plan a regular exercise, and to strengthen cooperation between
international organisations on Roma issues. In the Council of Europe in October,
participants at the Ministerial Summit on Roma adopted a declaration reaffirming the
rights of Roma, setting out priorities for tackling Roma exclusion, and committing the
participants to greater cooperation between Council of Europe countries and
European organisations on Roma issues. The UK Ambassador to the Council of
Europe spoke in strong support of the declaration, as a clear commitment to
improving the situation of Roma people in Europe.

Antisemitism
The Government’s first progress update report on its work to take forward the
recommendations of the 2006 All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism was
laid before Parliament on 13 December. The report was produced by the
Department for Communities and Local Government with input from eight other
government departments, including the FCO. It highlights our continued work to
raise antisemitism issues in international fora, including the UN, Council of Europe
and OSCE, as well as our ongoing support for the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for
Combating Antisemitism.

As a member of the Cross-Government Working Group to Tackle Antisemitism

established to coordinate work in response to the inquiry, we work to implement the
inquiry’s recommendations as well as those from the 2009 London Conference on
Combating Antisemitism. This work includes our ongoing support for the All-Party
Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism to encourage parliamentarians in other
countries to instigate similar inquiries into antisemitism; our active role in the Task
Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and
Research; and our efforts to ensure that work against antisemitism is given due
attention in international organisations.

In November, Canada hosted the second conference of the Inter-parliamentary

Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, as a follow up to the first conference held in
London in February 2009. Some 200 parliamentary delegates from more than 50
countries attended. The UK parliamentary delegation was led by Mr John Mann,
MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism, supported by
Lord Janner of Braunstone QC and Mr Andrew Rosindell, MP. The United Kingdom
Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues Sir Andrew Burns also attended. In his address to
the conference, Sir Andrew Burns highlighted the effectiveness of UK cross-
departmental cooperation on combating antisemitism; our concerns about hate
speech on the internet and on university campuses; the need for multilateral
organisations such as the EU, UN and OSCE to give priority to the issue; and the
role of Holocaust education and our support for British organisations such as the
Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Education Development Programme.
The conference concluded with the adoption of the Ottawa Protocol which reaffirms
the 2009 London Declaration, records alarm at the dramatic increase in
antisemitism, particularly on the internet and on campuses, and encourages leaders
of all religious faiths to combat antisemitism and all forms of discrimination. A third
inter-parliamentary conference is planned for 2011.

At the OSCE, the Government supports activities to combat hate crime, including
antisemitic hate crime, across participating states. With an NGO from the
Netherlands, supported by the Netherlands government, we co-hosted a side event
at the OSCE Human Dimension Review Conference in Warsaw in October about
efforts to combat hate crime on the internet whilst respecting freedom of speech.
We work closely with the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights to implement the commitments from the 2009 OSCE Ministerial Council
Decision on combating hate crimes in the OSCE region, particularly in relation to
building international cooperation to reduce the harm caused by hate crime on the
internet.

The OSCE Chairman-in-Office employs three Personal Representatives on

Tolerance and Non-Discrimination, including a Personal Representative on
Combating Antisemitism, Rabbi Andrew Baker. The three representatives visited the
UK in July and met senior officials involved in combating antisemitism. In November,
Rabbi Baker commended the UK for being one of only six OSCE participating states
to collect and report data on antisemitic hate crimes.

Post-Holocaust issues
In June, William Hague appointed Sir Andrew Burns as the United Kingdom Envoy
for Post-Holocaust Issues. Sir Andrew will help to ensure that the UK takes the
leading role in international discussions on Holocaust issues and best represents the
interests of the many Holocaust victims and their families in the UK. As William
Hague said: “Sir Andrew’s appointment will ensure that we continue to support those
working to right past wrongs and … to make sure that the lessons of this terrible
period in our history are never forgotten.”

Sir Andrew is responsible for leading the UK’s post-Holocaust work, drawing
together activity from across government and providing a clearer UK international
profile, presence and influence. His work includes driving forward implementation of
the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets; resolving outstanding issues
related to property and art restitution; maintaining the UK at the forefront of
discussions on the vital work of the Task Force for International Cooperation on
Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research; and ensuring the accessibility
and preservation of the Bad Arolsen archival record of the Nazi era and its aftermath.
Sir Andrew also provides a senior point of contact for UK non-governmental experts
on these issues. Since his appointment Sir Andrew has attended international
meetings on Holocaust education, remembrance and research and on restitution
issues and has met a range of leading British, US and international Holocaust
figures, including from the Jewish community.

Israel chaired the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education,
Remembrance and Research in 2010. At its plenary meetings in June and
December the Task Force adopted a number of decisions concerning its future work,
including proposals on issues related to mass graves, the Roma genocide, and
Holocaust denial, as well as decisions regarding Finland’s membership of the
organisation and its future structure and legal status. We will work closely with the
incoming chair, the Netherlands, throughout 2011 as it looks to implement various
reforms to streamline working practices as membership of the Task Force continues
to expand.

At the June plenary, the UK’s Holocaust Educational Trust gave a well-received
presentation of its “Lessons from Auschwitz” project, through which sixth-form
students and their teachers take part in two afternoon seminars and a one-day visit
to the former Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau. In December, Sir
Andrew presented the revised UK country report on Holocaust education, prepared
by the Institute of Education’s Holocaust Education Development Programme at the
University of London. This was the first time that any member country of the Task
Force has revised, updated and resubmitted its country report and, in addition to
providing compelling evidence of the UK’s world leading research position into the
challenges and opportunities of teaching this complex subject in the school
classroom, clearly dispels common myths and misconceptions about the status of
Holocaust teaching in the UK.

At its meeting in May, the 11 member-country governing body of the International

Tracing Service (the Holocaust-era archive in Bad Arolsen) agreed a revised
governance structure for the Tracing Service. This new structure establishes it as
“an organisation with international character” with the capacity to act under German
law and a role for an “institutional partner” which would work with the governing body
and the director of the Tracing Service to implement the organisation’s objectives. It
was also agreed that the institutional partner’s role would be set out in a second
agreement to be negotiated during 2011. At the end of the year, discussions were
ongoing under the Polish chairmanship and we hope these will be concluded shortly.
The two agreements will then be brought into force simultaneously. We will continue
to work to ensure that the final agreements support the long-term future of the
Tracing Service in terms of ensuring the archive remains intact, conserves its
holdings and guarantees accessibility. At the same time, discussions are ongoing
with a number of interested bodies and individuals in the UK on the feasibility of
bringing a copy of the Bad Arolsen archive to the UK so that it may be even more
accessible to British historians and others interested in the information which these
very extensive archives contain.

In June the then Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer hosted a ceremony in Prague to
adopt a set of guidelines and best practices for the restitution and compensation of
immovable (real) property confiscated or otherwise wrongfully seized by the Nazis,
Fascists and their collaborators during the Holocaust (Shoah) Era between 1933-
1945, including the Period of World War II. The UK was actively involved in the
negotiation of these guidelines, which are a follow-up to the Terezin Declaration
adopted at the June 2009 Prague Conference on Holocaust Era Assets. The
guidelines cover three categories of property: property owned by religious or
communal organizations; that owned by private individuals; and heirless property.
More than forty countries endorsed the guidelines, including the US, Canada and
Israel as well as European and Latin American states. These guidelines are not
themselves legally binding and need to be reflected in national legislation. But as
one of the last outstanding Holocaust-related issues, it was symbolically important
that agreement was finally reached. We are encouraging all other countries to adopt
these guidelines expeditiously in order that outstanding claims to immovable
property may be resolved as soon as possible through fair and transparent
processes. Comparable guidelines on the restitution of looted art were agreed as
long ago as 1998 in the so-called Washington Principles. In the UK, the Spoliation
Commission has adjudicated on a number of cases to return stolen and looted works
of art to their rightful owners. We are working with a number of European
governments on other cases where it may be possible for the Government to help
unblock legal or bureaucratic obstacles to restitution.