זה מופיע בתחתית המסמך:

In favour:

Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Indonesia, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Against:

Togo, United States of America

Abstaining:

Albania, Croatia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]

 

 

Shani

Can you please see what other countries votes were?

Please see What was Spain's vote, Germany, South Africa, U.K.

Thanks

Vered

 

 

שלום וברכה,

 

ראה את המייל המצ"ב מעורכי הדין בבלגיה.

 

חשוב שנדון יחד על כיצד להתייחס לטיעון בעייתי  זה בנייר.

 

שוש/הילה - האם אפשר לאתר את העמדה של בלגיה ב-HRC  או שרק יש הצבעה?

 

 

מרלין

 

 

Dear Marlene,

 

As we were searching for UN documents that might assist us in evidencing the independence, impartiality and fairness of Israel’s judicial system, we notably came across UN Human Rights Council Resolution 3428 (2017) of 11 April 2017, adopted with Belgium voting in favour. The resolution is attached for your convenience.

 

As you may know, the preamble of the resolution is very critical of Israel’s system and the handling of Palestinian complaints, in particular: “Regretting the lack of progress in the conduct of domestic investigations in accordance with international law standards, and aware of the existence of numerous legal, procedural and practical obstacles in the Israeli civil and criminal legal system contributing to the denial of access to justice for Palestinian victims and of their right to an effective judicial remedy”.

 

The question is : how can Israel convince the Belgian MFA to qualify the Israeli system as independent, impartial and fair, knowing that Belgium voted in favour of the above resolution only one month ago? Irrespective of the merits of Israel’s arguments, the MFA cannot be expected to disavow its vote in the Human Rights Council.

 

We have to address this issue so as to try and convince the Belgian MFA that the UN reports and its vote in the HRC do not stand in the way of a finding that Israel meets the conditions in Article 10, paragraph 1, 1bis, 4°. Subject to further analysis, it appears to me that your Government’s memo should :

 

(a)  emphasise the most recent improvements in its system for the handling of complaints (including since August 2016), as well as patterns of continuous improvement. This is for your teams to focus on.

 

(b)  argue implicitly or expressly that these improvements are not all reflected in the UN’s most recent reports and decisions.

 

Indeed, although the positions taken in resolution 3428 (2017) are termed as describing the situation on the day of the vote, reference is made, for instance, to document A/HRC/29/52 dated 24 June 2015. This document would, in turn, reflect the situation before that date. This time-lapse may well explain why the paragraphs quoted above are to be found in the preamble rather than in the operative part of the resolution.

 

Along the same lines, there is an equally critical report of the OHCHR of January 2017 (A/HRC/34/36), which covers the period from 1 November 2015 to 31 October 2016. At paragraph 46, reference is made to a MAG report of August 2016. It will be of great importance to try and highlight any further developments after that date.

 

(c)  argue that such reports and decisions reflect an overall appreciation of the overall situation over the last years. By contrast, the only question arising under Article 10, paragraph 1, 1bis, 4°, is whether the Israeli system meets the conditions of independence, impartiality and fairness at the time when the Federal Prosecutor considers to defer the case to the jurisdiction of Israel.

 

In other words, it would be argued (implicitly or expressly) that while the track record as reflected in UN documents may be bad, continuous and significant improvements have been made. Such improvements cannot do away with the track record immediately and retroactively, but this is irrelevant to the question raised under Article 10, which is only concerned with whether Israel’s system is adequate at present and capable of dealing with the Belgian complaint in an independent, impartial and fair manner.

 

Kind regards

 

Nicolas

 

 

Nicolas Angelet Advocaat/Avocat - Partner

Professeur à l'Université Libre de Bruxelles

boulevard de l’Empereur 3 Keizerslaan | B-1000 Brussels [Map] E : [email protected] T : +32 2 551 14 72 F : +32 2 551 14 54 http://www.liedekerke.com Add me to your contacts

 

 

 

This message is intended for the individual or entity named above and may be protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrines.
Unauthorized receipt or dissemination of information contained herein may be a violation of law.
If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
If you or your employer does not consent to Internet e-mails messages of this kind, please advise us immediately.
Liedekerke has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that any attachment to this e-mail has been swept for viruses. However, we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.

Thank you.