United Nations A/HRC/WG.

6/13/IND/3
General Assembly Distr.: General
12 March 2012

Original: English

Human Rights Council

Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review
Thirteenth session
Geneva, 21 May - 4 June 2012

Summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner

for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 5 of the
annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21

India*

The present report is a summary of 51 stakeholders’ submissions 1 to the universal periodic

review. It follows the general guidelines adopted by the Human Rights Council in its decision 17/119.
It does not contain any opinions, views or suggestions on the part of the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), nor any judgement or determination in relation to
specific claims. The information included herein has been systematically referenced in endnotes and,
to the extent possible, the original texts have not been altered. As provided for in Resolution 16/21 of
the Human Rights Council, where appropriate, a separate section is provided for contributions by the
national human rights institution of the State under review that is accredited in full compliance with
the Paris Principles. The full texts of all submissions received are available on the OHCHR website.
The report has been prepared taking into consideration the periodicity of the review and developments
during that period.

*
*
The present document was not edited before being sent to United Nations
translation services.

GE.12-11860
A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

I. Information provided by the accredited national human

rights institution of the State under review in full compliance
with the Paris Principles

A. Background and framework

1. The National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) 2 reported its assessement
of the Government’s response to the eighteen recommendations made in UPR 1. 3
According to NHRC, there was no evidence that India intended to ratify CED. Enforced
disappearance was not codified as a criminal offence in domestic law, nor was extant
provisions of law used to deter the practice. 4 India had not taken any steps towards signing
and ratifying OP-CEDAW.5 India’s position for not ratifying ILO Conventions No. 138 and
182 was less tenable after the passage of the Right to Education Act, which made it
compulsory for children to be at school until the age of fourteen. 6 India had not reviewed
its reservation to article 32 of the CRC.7
2. NHRC stated that the “Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010”, which was originally
weak, was strengthened by a Select Committee of Parliament’s Upper House. If the Bill
eventually adopted diluted the revisions proposed by the Select Committee, India’s
commitment to the CAT would be called into question.8
3. NHRC stated that there had been no developments to amend the Special Marriage
Act and give equal rights to property accumulated during marriage.9
4. According to the NHRC, the Government continued to allow the National
Commissions function independently but had given them no additional powers or greater
resources; the State Human Rights Commissions were mostly moribund; and few human
rights courts had been set up.10
5. NHRC reported that there was still no national action plan for human rights. 11 There
was little progress in strengthening human rights education and almost none of the States in
India had given education priority.12
6. NHRC stated that the Human Development Report 2011 of the Planning
Commission included some disaggregated data, but not on caste and related discrimination.
NHRC believed such data was essential in key areas of: crimes committed against women
and children from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; violence against women
other than rape; bonded labour, child labour and manual scavenging; custodial violence,
illegal detention and torture. 13
7. NHRC was unaware of any programmes of the Government on sharing its
experience in promoting and protecting human rights.14

B. Cooperation with human rights mechanisms

8. Reporting on the implementation of recommendations made to India, NHRC

indicated that the Government’s issuance of a standing invitation to mandate holders should
not make it difficult to act on the request to receive the Special Rapporteur on torture. 15
India’s reports were still delayed or it had not reported to treaty bodies.16
9. NHRC was unaware of a formal follow-up process to the UPR and, thus, the
question of the integration of a gender perspective did not arise. 17 Some Ministries
consulted civil society in the formulation and implementation of their programmes. 18

2
 A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

C. Implementation of international human rights obligations

10. NHRC stated that the Indian experiment was unique and must be judged by its own
benchmarks, which were set by a powerful and activist judiciary, a free media and vigilant
civil society, which were guardians of human rights in an open society run by the rule of
law. 19
11. With respect to civil and political rights, NHRC stated that the implementation of
laws, the weakness of new Bills and the law’s delay were areas of concern. Some of which
were highlighted by the NHRC.20
12. HRC received 341 complaints of disappearance in 2010, 338 so far in 2011. These
numbers underlined the need for the Government to act. 21
13. 35% of the complaints to the NHRC annually were against the police. In 2006 the
Supreme Court issued seven binding directives to start police reform, but little had been
done, although the need was urgent.22
14. Custodial justice remained a problem. Jails were overcrowded and unhygienic,
disease rampant and treatment poor. NHRC indicated that 67% of prisoners were pre-trial,
unable to raise bail or confined far longer than they should be because of the huge backlog
of cases. 23
15. There were inordinate delays in the provision of justice. 56,383 cases were pending
in the Supreme Court at the end of October 2011. At the end of 2010, 4.2 million cases
were pending in High Courts, and almost 28 million in subordinate courts. 24
16. Bonded labour continued and was taking new forms. NHRC had received reports of
bonded labour being used to execute defence projects in difficult areas. 25
17. The degrading practice of manual scavenging continued. Some States were in
denial over this. The Indian Railways were the largest users of manual scavengers. 26
18. The focal point set up in the NHRC for the protection of human rights defenders
received complaints that several, including those working on minority rights and the rights
of the scheduled castes and tribes, faced harassment in several States, including arbitrary
detention. 27
19. NHRC reported that in the areas controlled by the Naxal movement, human rights
have become even more parlous: governance and the rule of law rarely functioned.
Villagers were the victims of Naxal violence, and collateral damage in the counter-
insurgency operations.28
20. NHRC stated that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) remained in force
in Jammu & Kashmir and the North-Eastern States, conferring impunity that often led to
the violation of human rights, despite India reporting in 2011 that it did not face
international or non-international armed conflict situations.29
21. NHRC stated that although India had set up ambitious “flagship programmes” to
provide economic, social and cultural rights those rights remained precarious. 30 The
flagship programmes, through which the Government addressed “economic and social
inequities,” were not well conceived, had been lavishly funded but looted by the corrupt.
Intended beneficiaries received a small proportion of their supposed entitlements. 31 The
denial or the abuse of, or the inability to access, their rights hit the most vulnerable the
hardest – women, children, the scheduled castes and tribes, and the minorities. 32
22. Over 90% of the workforce was in the unorganized sector, had no access to social
security, was particularly vulnerable in the cities, and, therefore, driven into permanent
debt, often leading to conditions of bonded labour. 33

3
A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

23. A massive public distribution system had not assured the right to food because
malnutrition was endemic. The National Advisory Council had recommended that legal
entitlements to subsidized foodgrains be extended to at least 75% of the population. This
was not acceptable to the Government, which set arbitrary ceilings on the numbers who
could be declared as being below the poverty line. 34
24. Under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme 55 million were given
work, but on average received half the wages guaranteed. The Scheme had not made
enough of an impact, very large sums of money had been siphoned off, and it did not
provide long-term employment or build permanent assets. 35
25. The Indira Awas Yojana, set up to provide rural housing, required that an applicant
had a plot of land. Millions of landless were excluded. The scheme did not provide
enough to build a house, and there was some evidence that those who took the money
ended up in debt. 36
26. Public spending on health continued to be abysmally low, at about 1% of GDP,
despite Government’s commitment to raise it to 2-3%. The public health system was
riddled with problems; vast numbers in the villages get little or no medical care. An
evaluation and audit had found serious deficiencies in the National Rural Health Mission. 37
Referring to the high percentage of underweight children under age five years, NHRC
reported that a 2011 evaluation of a huge programme called the Integrated Child
Development Services found that 60% of the annual budget for supplementary nutrition
was being diverted. 38
27. The quality of education, particularly in the villages, was dismal; the infrastructure
was appalling, teachers were absent, para-teachers were poorly trained. Learning levels
and literacy were very low. 39
28. Rapid growth, the development of infrastructure and the expansion of mining
industries, had all led to massive displacements of populations, often without their informed
consent. NHRC found that usually those displaced were given neither adequate relief, nor
the means of rehabilitation. 40

II. Information provided by other stakeholders

A. Background and framework

1. Scope of international obligations

29. Joint Submission 9 (JS9) stated that the Prevention of Torture Bill 2010 (PTB), was
yet to be tabled before both Houses of Parliament.41 JS14 and HAQ: Centre for Child
Rights (HAQ) stated that this Bill did not contain any provisions in relation to children. 42
The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) stated that the Bill required substantial revision,
including in its definition of torture. 43 The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
recommended making provision for criminal liability for public officials and superior and
commanding officers; and that India eventually become a party to OP-CAT. 44 Working
Group on Human Rights in India and the UN (WGHR) recommended that India adopt the
PTB after addressing its shortcomings and then immediately ratify CAT.45 Human Rights
Watch (HRW) recommended ratification of CED. 46 WGHR recommended that India ensure
that enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings are codified as offences under
criminal law.47
30. Amnesty International (AI) recommended ratification of ICRMW and the optional
protocols to ICCPR, and ICESCR.48 JS249 and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

4
 A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

(CHRI) recommended that India sign and ratify OP-CEDAW; 50 JS2 and AI recommended
the removal of the reservations to CEDAW; 51 and JS14 reconsideration of India’s
reservation to Article 32 of CRC.52
31. JS16 called on India to ratify and effectively implement the Rome Statue.53 JS13
recommended that India accede to Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions
and give unconditional access to the International Committee of the Red Cross to the north-
eastern region, especially Manipur.54
32. JS10 recommended urgent ratification of the ILO C. Nos. 182 and 138; 55 and JS11
recommended ratification of ILO C. 169.56

2. Constitutional and legislative framework

33. Edmund Rice International (India) (ERI)57and JS3 observed that various legal
instruments defined children by different ages. 58 JS1459 and JS3 encouraged India to have a
uniform definition.60
34. Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) recommended amending the
Human Rights Protection Act 199361 to enable the NHRC to address business-related
human rights grievances.62

3. Institutional and human rights infrastructure and policy measures

35. JS20 stated that all the National Human Rights Institutions did not comply with the
Paris Principles, for reasons which included their lack of financial autonomy and their
dependence on seconded staff from government departments. 63 JS12 recommended
reforms to the NHRC, including ending the use of serving or retired police officers on
investigative teams.64
36. JS20 reported that the NHRC cannot investigate human rights violations by the
armed forces under section 19 of the Human Rights Protection Act. 65 JS16 stated that in
1997 the NHRC was empowered by the Supreme Court to examine the role of state actors
in the perpetration of human rights violations in Amritsar, 66 and to provide redress to
victims.67 After fifteen years of proceedings, NHRC had little to show. 68 JS16 made
recommendations to ensure accountability of the NHRC.69
37. JS18 recommended strengthening the State Human Rights Commission in the seven
states where they were operational and establishing commissions in the remaining states. 70
Child Rights and You (CRY) recommended that the National and State Commissions for
the protection of child rights be set up as constitutional bodies accountable to the
legislature.71
38. AI recommended that India produce an action plan for human rights.72
39. HAQ stated that the National Plan of Action for Children was in need of revision as
most goals projected to be accomplished by 2010, remained unaccomplished. 73
40. . WGHR stated that there was no public information available of a developed
national action plan for human rights education 74 and JS18 recommended its development.75
JS9 recommended that India formulate a coherent plan to provide training on the
prevention of discrimination to, inter alia, law enforcement and judicial personnel. 76
41. JS9 stated that in the 2011 nationwide census there was no disaggregation of data by
caste, gender, religion, status and region.77

5
A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

B. Cooperation with human rights mechanisms

42. ICJ recommended that India present a national plan of action for the implementation
of, inter alia, accepted recommendations to the Plenary of the Human Rights Council at the
adoption of the report on its upcoming review; and two years thereafter present a mid-term
progress report on the status of implementation.78

1. Cooperation with treaty bodies

43. Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) recommended that India ensure that it met
its reporting responsibilities in a timely fashion. 79 Implementation of treaty body
recommendations on caste-based discrimination was recommended by JS9 80 and on
maternal health by JS2.81

2. Cooperation with special procedures

44. CSW recommended that India ensure that recommendations made by special
procedures mandate holders were implemented.82
45. CHRI suggested that the Government clear the backlog and invite all Special
Procedures with pending visit requests to visit India before the next UPR. 83 International
Forum for Justice/Human Rights Forum J&K (IFJ/HRFJK) called on India to extend an
invitation to the Special Rapporteur on violence against women.84

C. Implementation of international human rights obligations, taking into

account applicable international humanitarian law

1. Equality and non-discrimination

46. Equal Rights Trust stated that India must amend or repeal discriminatory laws and
introduce comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation to meet its international
obligations.85 JS9 recommended the development of a national action plan to eliminate all
forms of discrimination.86
47. JS20 stated that patriarchy remained the root cause of discrimination against
women.87 Peoples’ Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) stated that human
rights initiatives in India lacked a gender perspective. 88 WGHR reported that violence
against women was pervasive.89 WGHR recommended that the Government reform
religion-based family laws and address witch-hunting through a national law. 90 JS3 urged
India to undertake and enforce effective measures to ensure equal treatment and
opportunities between men and women in the employment market.91 ERI recommended that
the Government quickly pass the much awaited 33% Women's Reservation Bill.92
48. JS993 and JS2094 reported on violations against Scheduled castes (SC), including
1349 rape cases, 570 murder cases, 511 abduction cases and 150 arson cases in 2010.
ALRC stated that India should be encouraged to take affirmative actions, beyond
legislation, such as the mandatory acceptance of complaints. 95 JS3 urged India to take steps
to abolish the discriminatory practice of “untouchability” and prevent caste motivated
abuse.96
49. According to JS9, Dalit Christians formed around 75-80% of the Indian Christian
population.97 Lutheran World Federation (LWF) stated if members of SC and scheduled
tribes (ST) converted to some religions they lost their rights under the “reservation system”
as well as their protection under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. LWF made
recommendations, including amending the laws to ensure that members of the SC and ST
have access to the same rights and protections, irrespective of their religion.98

6
 A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

50. According to JS12, Muslims were often segregated in India 99 and housing
discrimination had become a problem, particularly since the Mumbai bombings. 100
Although Muslims made up nearly nearly 14 percent of India’s population, they held fewer
than five percent of government posts.101
51. JS20 stated that many of the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups were on the
verge of extinction while others were stigmatized under the ‘Habitual Offenders Act’. 102

2. Right to life, liberty and security of the person

52. JS1 stated that Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 prescribed
the death penalty for drug related crimes. 103 Child Rights Information Network made
recommendations, including the enactment of legislation prohibiting capital punishment
and life imprisonment for child offenders in Jammu and Kashmir. 104 ICJ recommended that
India establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty and
take immediate steps towards abolition of the death penalty.105
53. AI stated that the AFSPA granted security forces, in specified areas of armed
insurgency, powers to shoot to kill in situations where they were not necessarily at
imminent risk.106 WGHR stated that enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings
remained entrenched in conflict areas, reinforced by extraordinary powers of arrest,
detention and immunity available to the security forces. In Manipur, 789 extra-judicial
executions were documented between 2007 and 2010. A People’s Tribunal established the
presence of 2,700 mass unmarked graves, confirmed by the J&K State Human Rights
Commission in 2011. In West-Bengal, the Border Security Force (BSF) had been
responsible for extra-judicial killings at the Indo-Bangladesh border. 107
54. WGHR indicated that a study concluded that 1.8 million people were victims of
police torture and ill-treatment in India every year. 108 ALRC stated that the practice of
torture was widespread; 109 perpetrated in all forms of custody; 110 condoned in conflict
areas;111 and was a common technique for criminal investigations.112 Successful prosecution
for torture was extremely low.113
55. WGHR alleged that a new law sought to widen the scope of deployment of BSF for
counter-insurgency and “anti-Naxal” operations. 114 The police was being increasingly
militarized in conflict areas and given charges of counter-insurgency operations.
Paramilitary forces were being intensely trained by the army for operations in Central
India.115 JS19 indicated that, in 2010, in Jammu and Kashmir, the police and paramilitary
used excessive force against anti-government protestors.116 It made recommendations,
including the issuing of non-lethal weapons to security forces for crowd control purposes.117
56. JS18 reported on religious violence and intolerance among religious groups and
organized communal attacks against religious minorities and their properties. 118 CSW
commended India for its attempt to pass legislation on communal violence; and encouraged
India to see this process through. Such a law could provide a useful model to other
countries in the region confronting similar problems.119
57. WGHR noted a worrying trend in the targeting of activists seeking implementation
of progressive laws/schemes.120 Urgent concerns about the environment in which activists
and human rights defenders operated and the threats they faced, especially where they
exposed official nepotism and corruption, were reported by JS19. JS19 made
recommendations.121
58. AI stated that in Jammu and Kashmir the State authorities continued to use the
Public Safety Act, 1978, to detain individuals for long periods of time. 122 WGHR reported
that a large number of adivasis had been arbitrarily arrested in Central India and languished
in jail.123 JS12 made recommendations, including that India ensure that apprehension,

7
A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

arrest, detention, custody and imprisonment were in accordance with international

standards.124
59. Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children recommended that
India introduce legislation, as a matter of urgency, to prohibit corporal punishment of
children in the home and in all settings, including as a sentence under traditional forms of
justice.125
60. PVCHR stated that discriminatory attitudes and lack of sensitization on the
dynamics of crimes involving sexual and domestic violence left victims without critical
police aid or redress to which they were entitled.126 HRW recommended that India enact a
comprehensive law prohibiting all forms of sexual assault against women and children.127
61. JS11 stated that India was a source, destination, and transit country for trafficked
human beings, mostly for forced labour, bonded labour, 128 and commercial sexual
exploitation.129 Allegedly, victims were mostly women and children belonging to the lower
castes and tribes and living in disadvantaged regions.130 JS4 reported on violations faced by
“sex workers” due to the criminalization of “sex work” and the stigma associated with it.131
62. JS10 proposed amendment of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 to, inter alia, clearly define child prostitution and criminalize
related acts;132 and define trafficking in children.133 Odisha Goti Mukti Andolan reported on
the practice of bonded labour.134 JS11 recommended the adoption of victim-centred
legislation and the regulation of registration of placement agencies for migrant workers. 135
63. According to JS3, children who abandoned school became domestic workers with
low wages, street children or railway dwellers. 136 Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace
recommended the release and rehabilitation of all children subjected to child labour. 137

3. Administration of justice, including impunity, and the rule of law

64. CHRI stated that there was a shortage of judges 138 and nearly 16 million people were
awaiting trials for crimes.139 In 2010, there were there were more than 32 million pending
cases, an increase of more than 830 thousand from the previous year. 140 ICJ recommended
increasing the number of courts and judges by immediately filling all vacancies. 141
65. CHRI recommended that the Government undertake police reforms in the spirit of
the Supreme Court’s orders in the 2006 judgement and along the lines of recommendations
made by the National Police Commission.142 WGHR recommended the creation of an
independent directorate of prosecution.143 ALRC encouraged India to consider reform of
justice institutions as the Government’s priority.144
66. HRW recommended that India vigorously investigate and prosecute officials who
order, commit, or tolerate human rights violations, including torture, custodial killings,
faked armed encounter killings, and enforced disappearances. 145 United NGOs Mission-
Manipur (UNM-M) recommended effective investigation and prosecution of human rights
violations committed by the security forces in the context of AFSPA; and the provision of
effective access to justice and remedy for the victims of these violations.146
67. IFJ/HRFJK recommended that India allow DNA profiling of the bodies from mass
and unmarked graves in Jammu and Kashmir and allow for international investigation in
this regard.147 A related recommendation was made by JS22.148
68. CHRI stated that India’s pre-trial prison population was one of the highest in the
world.149 JS20 reported that custodial deaths were rampant. 150 CHRI called for ensuring
more release on bail and parole and that the Government strengthen statutory prison
oversight mechanisms.151

8
 A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

69. ICJ made recommendations for ensuring the availability of legal aid to a larger
segment of the population.152
70. HAQ indicated that the Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPUs) in every district with
at least one police officer designated as juvenile welfare officer, as provided in law, did not
exist.153 JS14 made recommendations, including the expeditious establishment of fast-track,
child-friendly courts.154
71. WGHR stated that India lacked a law or scheme for witness protection. The
Supreme Court had developed principles, none of which encompassed all aspects of
witness protection.155
72. PVCHR stated that the culture of impunity was the biggest threat to the rule of
law.156 HRW recommended the repeal of all legal provisions providing immunity to
government officials, including article 197 of the Criminal Code of Procedure and of
AFSPA.157 WGHR noted that sections of the Government were calling for re-examining the
AFSPA, which was opposed by the army.158 Kashmir Institute of International Relations
called for the repeal of the Public Safety Act, Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Area Act and
National Security Act which provide impunity to Indian army and other security
agencies.159

4. Right to privacy, marriage and family life

73. WGHR stated that in 2009, homosexuality was de-criminalized by the Delhi High
Court. The judgement was under appeal. The State has abdicated its role of defending the
judgment, relegating defence of human rights of the LGBT persons to civil society.160
74. JS6 recommended mandatory registration of all deaths, births and marriages. 161

5. Freedom of religion or belief, expression and association

75. JS21 stated that “Freedom of Religion” Acts, which regulate religious
conversions,162 had been enacted in the states of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. 163 JS21 alleged that attacks against
religious minorities, including the Christian community, appeared to be more pronounced
in the states that have adopted such acts.164 JS5 recommended the repealing of the Freedom
of Religion Act in the states in which they existed. 165JS5 alleged that the “Adivasis” had
been a major target of forced religious conversion by the “Hindu religious right wing”. 166
Pax Christi International called for measures to address incidents of hate speech and
violence against religious minorities. 167 JS18 made recommendations for the prevention of
religious intolerance and religion-based strife. 168
76. WGHR reported that the stringent provisions under the Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act 2010 could threaten the functioning of human rights organizations,
especially those critical of the Government. 169 Concerns about the Act were also raised by
the European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses.170
77. JS15 commended the Government on internet initiatives and progress, including in
the areas of education, health and e-governance. 171 JS15 recommended uniform
implementation of the Right to Information Act 2000 across India, which will bring
transparency, ensure accountability and minimise corruption. 172
78. CRY recommended the establishment of a broadcasting regulatory authority that,
inter alia, would address the exploitative and degrading portrayal of children including in
the media.173

9
A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

6. Right to work and to just and favourable conditions of work

79. WGHR stated that India’s economic policies were steadily eroding rights, working
conditions and living standards for the majority of the labour force, 92 percent of who
belonged to the informal sector. 174 JS9 recommended, inter alia, the adoption of the
“Unorganised Workers Social Security Bill”.175

7. Right to social security and to an adequate standard of living

80. JS11 reported that SC and ST accounted for 80% of the rural poor. 176 ALRC stated
that widespread corruption denied the rural poor the benefits of development and
government welfare schemes. India should be urged to bring functioning, transparent
mechanisms to prevent this corruption.177
81. WGHR stated that almost fifty percent of the world’s hungry lived in India. India
had the world’s highest number of malnourished and hungry children. 178 JS11 stated that
India’s National Food Security Bill (NFSB) overlooked the Interim Orders of the Supreme
Court on the right to food. 179 WGHR noted that the NFSB failed to universalise the Public
Distribution System (PDS) the world’s largest food subsidy programme. A successful
system of quasi-universal PDS had been introduced by Tamil Nadu, which should be
emulated across the country.180
82. WGHR stated that India faced an acute housing shortage 181 and recommended the
development of a rights-based national housing policy or law with a focus on social
housing.182
83. WGHR reported that the provision of water and sanitation, although claimed to be a
priority, was dismal. 665 million people defecated in the open.183

8. Right to health
84. JS8, World Vision (WV) and WGHR made recommendations on increasing the
budget allocation on health.184 JS8 made recommendations, including that India address
human resource constraints; prioritize the funds, infrastructure and capacity to manage
drugs and supplies; and address socio-economic inequalities in public health care services
planning.185
85. WGHR stated that India had the world’s highest child mortality. 186 According to
JS2, India was the country leading all others in the absolute number of maternal deaths. 187
WV reported that States with poor health indicators like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, accounted for almost half of the
country’s ST population and 37% of SC population. 188 JS2 stated that the persistence of
maternal mortality, including due to child marriage and unsafe abortion, reflected the low
status of women in India and the lack of prioritization of gender equality (MDG 3). 189 HRW
recommended that India ensure that maternal health programmes did not discriminate
against women with more than two children or mothers under the age of 18.190
86. JS17 highlighted the serious concerns regarding the very limited availability of
palliative care services.191 HRW recommended that India take immediate steps to ensure
that all regional cancer centres offered palliative care and all states and territories
implement simplified morphine regulations.192
87. WGHR recommended that India review regulations to prevent unethical medical
trials.193

10
 A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

9. Right to education
88. JS6 was concerned about inadequate funding to implement the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE) and involvement of the private sector. 194 While
acknowledging the RTE, JS15 referred to widespread internet use and indicated that the
internet could be a medium to access information and knowledge at low cost.195
89. JS3 noted that discrimination against ST and SC children affected children in the
educational system.196 JS9 stated that a disproportionate number of SC students, in higher
education, had committed suicide.197 ERI recommended zero tolerance for any form of
discrimination based, inter alia, on religion, caste, or disability, in schools.198
90. HRW reported on Maoist attacks on schools and on the government occupation of
schools for their anti-insurgency operations. 199 Related concerns were raised by JS20, 200
UNM-M201 and JS13.202 ERI recommended that the army or police should not occupy
schools during conflict situations.203

10. Persons with disabilities

91. ERI recommended that children with disabilities should be educated in mainstreams
schools.204
92. National Disability Network (NDN) stated that there was a lack of protection for
people with disabilities from neglect, abuse, and harassment in families and communities,
and lack of support for them. There were many instances of abuse of people who were
mentally impaired in state-run institutions, including through the use of electro-convulsive
therapy. 205 NDN made recommendations.206

11. Minorities and indigenous peoples

93. Zo Indigenous Forum reported that India had the largest number of indigenous
people of any country and must recognize them as indigenous people. 207
94. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) stated that in north-east India,
ethnic tensions between indigenous people (e.g. Bodos) and those they regarded as
“outsiders” (e.g. Muslims or Adivasis) had led to violence and displacement. 208
95. According to IDMC, in Central India, the causes of conflict were linked to
discrimination against the indigenous population (or Adivasis) living in areas with large
mineral deposits that were being exploited by mining companies, threatening their ancestral
lands and traditional ways of life.209
96. JS7,210 JS13,211 IHRB212 and ALRC213 referred to alleged instances of violations of
indigenous peoples’ land rights with JS11 214 reporting that the dams and hydro-power
projects in Brahmaputra River Basin posed threats to the environment and the livelihood of
indigenous peoples. International Institute of Peace Justice and Human Rights reported on
alleged excessive use of force against groups protesting forced evictions and land
expropriation.215 AI recommended that legislation be amended to guarantee free, prior and
informed consent (FPIC)216 and that India ensure that proposals in the Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2011 explicitly prohibit forced evictions.217
97. JS11 stated that in north-east India, the indigenous languages (Sema, Lotha, Ao,
Aimol, Chiru, Kharam) were not included in the school curricula and there were no official
commitments to preserve these languages and cultures.218

11
A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/3

12. Migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers

98. WGHR reported that the status of refugees, simply treated as foreigners, remained
arbitrary, decided by the administrative authorities. WGHR called for the adoption of the
Refugee and Asylum Seekers (Protection) Bill, 2006.219

13. Internally displaced persons

99. IDMC recommended the development of national legislation and policy on internal
displacement.220

14. Right to development and environmental issues

100. WGHR stated that India’s free trade agreements threatened the rights to food, health,
work and development.221 WGHR recommended that trade and investment agreements meet
India’s constitutional and international commitments to human rights and environmental
standards.222

15. Human rights and counter-terrorism

101. JS12 stated that India promulgated amendments to the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act of 1967 which reintroduced elements of earlier anti-terrorism legislation
that had been broadly condemned. 223 It made recommendations, including revising the
definition of terrorism to be consistent with international law; 224 ensuring that police
training in counterterrorism operations included respect for due process, non-
discrimination, and humane treatment.225

Notes:

12
1
The stakeholders listed below have contributed information for this
summary; the full texts of all original submissions are available at: www.ohchr.org. (One
asterisk denotes a national human rights institution with “A” status)
National Human Rights Institution
NHRC National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, India;*
Civil society
ACJP Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace, Kingston, Pennsylvania, United
States of America (USA);
AI Amnesty International, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (UK);
ALRC Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong, China;
CHRI Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi, India;
CRIN Child Rights Information Network, UK;
CRY Child’s Rights and You, New Delhi, India;
CSW Christian Solidarity Worldwide, UK;
ERI Edmond Rice International , Geneva, Switzerland;
ERT The Equal Rights Trust, London, UK;
GIEACPC Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, London, UK;
HAQ HAQ:Centre for Child Rights, New Delhi, India;
HRW Human Rights Watch, Geneva, Switzerland;
ICJ International Commission of Jurists, Geneva, Switzerland;
IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre of the Norwegian Refugee Council,
Geneva, Switzerland;
IFJ/HRFJK International Forum for Justice / Human Rights Forum J&K, India;
IHRB Institute for Human Rights and Business, Nairobi, Kenya;
IIPJHR International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights, Geneva,
Switzerland;
JS1 Harm Reduction International, London, UK, Indian Harm Reduction Network, New
Delhi, India, and Asian Network of People who Use Drugs, Bangkok, Thailand (Joint
Submission 1);
JS2 Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, USA, and Human Rights Law Network,
New Delhi, India (Joint Submission 2);
JS3 Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice and International Volunteerism Organization
for Women, Education, Development, San Paulo, Brazil (Joint Submission 3);
JS4 Creating Resources for Empowerment and Action, New Delhi, India, and The Sexual
Rights Initiative (comprising of Action Canada for Population and Development,
Canada, Creating Resources for Empowerment and Action, India, Federation for
Women and Family Planning, Poland, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Egypt,
Akahata, Argentina), Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee, India, Veshya Anyay
Mukti Parishad, India, Talking About Reproductive and Sexual Health Issues, New
Delhi, India, Centre for Penology, Criminal Justice and Police Studies, and Jindal
Global Law School, India (Joint Submission 4);
JS5 Pax Romana, Geneva, Switzerland, Orissa Forum for Social Action, India, National
Dalit Movement for Justice, New Delhi, India, Dominicans for Justice and Peace,
Geneva, Switzerland, World Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland, and National
Solidarity Forum, India (Joint Submission 5);
JS6 World Vision India, India, National Coalition for Education, India (Joint Submission
6);
JS7 Odisha Review Development: a coalition of 33 civil society organizations, Odisha,
India (Joint Submission 7);
JS8 Save the Children, Washington, DC, USA, World Vision, Geneva, Switzerland (Joint
Submission 8);
JS9 National Coalition for Strengthening PoA Act, New Delhi, India, comprising of
National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, New Delhi, India, National Dalit
Movement for Justice, New Delhi, India (Joint Submission 9);
JS10 Equitable Tourism Options, India, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and
Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, India, (Joint Submission 10);
JS11 Franciscan International, Geneva, Switzerland, and Congregation of Our Lady of
Charity of the Good Shepherd Justice Peace and Solidarity, Canada (Joint Submission
11);
JS12 The Advocates for Human Rights, Minneapolis, USA, Indian American Muslim
Council, Washington, D. C., USA, Jamia Teacher Solidarity Association, New Delhi,
India (Joint Submission 12);
JS13 Centre for Organisation Research & Education, Manipur, India, Citizens Corn for
Dams and Development, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation, Civil
Liberties People Forum, (Joint Submission 13);
JS14 India Alliance for Child Rights, New Dehli, India (Joint Submission 14)
JS15 Digital Empowerment Foundation, New Delhi, India, India, and Association for
Progressive Communication, California, USA (Joint Submission 15);
JS16 REDRESS, London, UK, and Ensaaf, India, (Joint Submission 16);
JS17 Pallium India, India, Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance, London, UK, International
Association for Hospice & Palliative Care, Houston, USA, and Human Rights Watch,
Geneva, Switzerland (Joint Submission 17);
JS18 International Association for Religious Freedom, Geneva, Switzerland, Rama Krishna
Mission, Mahabodhi International Meditation Centre, Unitarian Universalist of India,
Forum for Harmony, Caussanal Inter -Religious Movement, Bahai's Spiritual Center,
World Zoroastrian Culture Federation, Thenkasi Harmony, Bala Vikas Foundation,
Vishaka Patnam, Sadhrana Brama Samaj, and Interfaith Fellowship for Peace and
Progress (Joint Submission 18);
JS19 CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Johannesburg, South Africa and
Common Wealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi, India (Joint Submission 19);
JS20 Asian Centre for Human Rights, New Delhi, India, Asian Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Network, New Delhi, India, Adivasi Development Council, India, Banglar
Manab Adhikar Suraksha Mancha, West Bengal, India, Mising Bane Kebang, Assam,
India, Karbi Human Rights Watch, Assam, India, Integrated Rural Women
Development Service Organization, Manipur, India, Zomi Human Rights Foundation,
India, Rural Women Upliftment Society, Manipur, India, Mizoram Bru Displaced
Peoples’ Forum, India, Young Chakma Association, Marpara Zone, Mizoram, India,
Kheruk Majdoor Chetna Sangat Alirajpur, Madhya Pradesh, India, Samaj Chetna
Adhikar Manch, Madhya Pradesh, India, Dialogue on Indigenous Culture and
Environment Foundation, India, National Campaign for Survival and Dignity,
Sundargarh, India, Indigenous Tribal Peoples Development Centre, Tripura, All Bodo
Students' Union, Assam, India, All Rabha students' Union, Assam, India, Dimasa
students' Union, Assam, India, and Barak Valley Chakma Students’ Association,
Assam, India (Joint Submission 20);
JS21 World Evangelical Alliance, New York, USA, and Evangelical Fellowship of India,
India (Joint Submission 21);
JS22 International Human Rights Association of American Minorities (IHRAAM),
Nainamo, Canada; Indian Council of South America (CISA), La Paz, Bolivia;
Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition (IPNC), Anchorage, Alaska; International
Council for Human Rights (ICHR), Brussels, Belgium; International Educational
Development, Los Angeles, USA; Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, San
Francisco, USA; International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), Hong
Kong, China (Joint Submission 22);
JW The European Association of Jehovah’s Christian Witness, Belgium;
KIIR Kashmir Institute of International Relations, Islamabad, Pakistan;
LWF Lutheran World Federation, Geneva, Switzerland;
NDN National Disability Network, New Delhi, India;
OFMI Organization for Minorities of India, Lathorp, California, Unied States of America;
OGMAOdisha Goti Mukti Andolan, India;
PCI Pax Christi International, Brussels, Belgium;
UNMM United NGOs Mission-Manipur, India comprising: Council for Anti Poverty
Action and Rural Volunteer, Centre for Social Development, Village Development
Organisation, Social Upliftment & Rural Edn., Abundant Life Miistry, Rural Service
Agency, Development of Human Potential, Action for Welfare and Awakening I
Rural Environnment, Rural Education and Action for Change Manipur, United Tribal
Development Project, Christian Social Development Organisation, Chandel Khubol
Social Welfare Arts and Culture Assn., Good Samaritan Foundation, Evangelical
Assembly Churches, Joint Action for Relief and Development Association, Rural Aid
Services, Integrated Rural Development Agency, Socio Economic Development
Organisation, Centre for Commuity, Centre for Rural Development and Educational
 Organisation, Paomei Development Society Tungjoy, Zougam Institute for
Community & Rural Development, Rural Development Association, Socio Economic &
Environment Development Organisation, Integrated Rural Development Welfare Association,
Tangkhul Theological Assn., Eastern Rural Development & Welfare Service, Participatory
Action for Sustainable Development Organisation, Women Uion for Peace, Shalom
Development Organisation, Rural Institute for Community Health and Dev., People’s Resource
Development Association, Rural Christian Development Society, New Life Foundation,
Women Action for Development, Tribal Women Dev. Assn, All Manipur Women Assn.,
Environment and Economic Management Assn., Centre for Women Development,
Rural Women Upliftment Society, Women In Holistic Development, Tuikhaphai Presbyterias
Women Dev. Project, Rural Women Dev. Society, Women Development Agency, Tribal
Women and Child Care Assn., Integrated Rural Management Agency, Umathel Women
Development Association, Action for Women in Development, Women’s Action for
Reformation, Centre for Women, Grace Ministry, Rural Women & Childrren Dev.
Organisation, Widow Welfare Society, Association for Rural Development & Women
Empowerment, Womem Development Organisation, Development Agency for
Tribal People, and Tamei Women Welfare Organisation, India (JointSubmission);
WGHR Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN comprising of Action
Aid India, Asian Centre for Human Rights, Citizens for Justice and Peace,
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, FIAN India, HAQ: Centre for Child
Rights, Housing and Land Rights Network, Human Rights Alert, India
Alliance for Child Rights, Lawyers Collective, Multiple Action Research
Group, National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, Partners for Law in
Development, and People’s Watch, India (Joint Submission);
WV World Vision, Geneva, Switzerland;
ZIF Zo Indigenous Forum, Mizoram, India.
2
NHRC-India, submission to the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review of India,
pp.1-6. The recommendations mentioned by NHRC-India can be found in document A/HRC/8/26 and
A/HRC/8/26/Add.1.
3
NHRC, para. 7 and pars. 8-24.
4
NHRC, para. 20.
5
NHRI, p. 5, para. 14.
6
NHRC, p. 5, para. 15.
7
NHRC, p. 5, para. 16.
8
NHRC, p. 1, para. 5, p. 4, para. 8.
9
NHRC, p. 6, para. 23.
10
NHRC, p. 4, para. 10.
11
NHRC, p. 5, para. 19.
12
NHRC, p. 5, para. 21.
13
NHRC, para. 13.
14
NHRC, p. 5, para. 17.
15
NHRC, para. 11.
16
NHRC, para. 12.
17
NHRC, p. 6, para. 22.
18
NHRC, p. 4, para. 9; See also WGHR, para. 2.
19
NHRC, p.1.
20
NHRC, para. 5.
21
NHRC, para. 20.
22
NHRC, para. 5.
23
NHRC, para. 5.
24
NHRC, para. 5.
25
NHRC, para. 5.
26
NHRC, para. 5.
27
NHRC, para. 5.
28
NHRC, p. 6, para. 25.
29
NHRC, para. 5.
30
NHRC, para. 6.
31
NHRC, p. 5, para. 18.
32
NHRC, para. 6.
33
NHRC, para. 6.
34
NHRC, para. 6.
35
NHRC, para. 6.
36
NHRC, para. 6.
37
NHRC, para. 6.
38
NHRC, para. 6.
39
NHRC, para. 6.
40
NHRC, para. 6.
41
JS 9, p. 2, para. 4. See also JS 20, p. 1; AI, p. 1; HRW, p. 1; IFJ, p. 5;
IHRB, p. 5; LWF, p. 3, para. 5; and OFMI, p. 5.
42
JS 14, p. 9, para. 7. 1 and HAQ, p. 6, para. 10. 4; See also CRY, p. 2.
43
ALRC, p. 3, para. 2.3; See also CRY, p. 2.
44
ICJ, p. 5, para. 24 (i) and (x). For other recommendations see p. 5, para. 24
(ii) to (ix).
45
WGHR, para. 37.
46
HRW, p. 5. See also IFJ, p. 5; LWF, p. 3, para. 5.
47
WGHR, para. 39, recommendations.
48
AI, p. 5.
49
JS 2, p. 6, recommendation 1.
50
CHRI, p. 7, para. 28. See also AI, p. 6.
51
JS 2, p. 6 and AI, p. 6.
52
JS 14, p. 6. See also IHRB, p. 5
53
IFJ/HRFJK, p. 5.
54
JS13, p. 10, recommendations, para. 43.
55
JS 10, p. 3. See also JS 9, p. 3, para. 6; JS 11, p. 7, para. 27 a); and IHRB,
p. 5.
56
JS 11, p. 10, para. 39 a). See also AI, p. 6.
57
ERI, p. 2, recommendation 2.
58
JS 3, para. 7.
59
JS14, p. 7, recommendations 5 and 6.
60
JS 3, para. 8. See also JS 14, p. 7, recommendation 5; HAQ, p. 2, para. 3;
and CRY, p. 2, para. b.
61
See also, HRW, p. 4, recommendations.
62
IHRB, p. 5, recommendations.
63
JS20, p. 2. See also HRW.
64
JS 12, p. 9, para. 30. See also HRW.
65
JS20, p. 2. See also HRW, p.3.
66
JS 16, p. 2, para. 4.
67
JS 16, p. 2, para. 4 and p. 3, para. 8.
68
JS 16, p. 4, para. 15.
69
JS 16, p. 6.
70
JS 18, p. 7, para. 3.
71
CRY, section 3, para. B, p. 3. See also HAQ, para 10.
72
AI, p. 5. See also JS 20, p. 1, WGHR, para. 3.
73
HAQ, p. 2, paras. 4, 5. See also JS10, pp. 5-6.
74
WGHR, para 3 and recommendation.
75
JS 18, p. 7, recommendations 1 and 2. See also WGHR, para. 3.
76
JS 9, p. 3, para. 7.
77
JS9, p. 2, para. 5.
78
ICJ, p. 6, para. 24, recommendations (xxiv) and (xxv).
79
CSW, p. 1, recommendation, para. 4.
80
JS 9, p. 13, recommendation 10.
81
JS2, p. 6, recommendation 6.
82
CSW, p. 4, para. 19. See also JS 2, p. 6, recommendation 6.
83
CHRI, para. 28, recommendation.
84
IFJ/HRFJK, p. 5, recommendations.
85
ERT, paras. 2 and recommendation, para. 22.
86
JS9, p. 13, recommendation 11.
87
JS20, p. 3.
88
PVCHR, p. 2.
89
WGHR, para. 60. See also JS20, pages 3 and 9
90
WGHR, paras. 59 and 62.
91
JS 3, para. 25, recommendation 4. See also, JS3, para. 21.
92
ERI, p. 5, recommendation 9.
93
JS9, paras. 14-15.
94
JS20, p. 16. See also WGHR, paras. 60 and 68, JS11, paras. 40 and 42,
ACJP, p.3 and PVCHR, pp.2-4.
95
ALRC, p. 5, para. 3.7.
96
JS 3, p. 5, para. 25.
97
JS9, para. 19.
98
LWF, p. 2, para. 2. See also JS 11, paras. 40 and 43; CSW, p. 1, paras. 5-8.
99
JS12, para. 25.
100
JS12, para. 26.
101
JS12, para. 25.
102
JS20, p. 4.
103
JS1, p. 1.
104
CRIN, p. 3.
105
ICJ, p. 6, para. 24 (xx).
106
AI, p.2.
107
WGHR, para. 39.
108
WGHR, para. 36.
109
ALRC, p. 3, para. 2.5. See also JS20, p.8.
110
ALRC, p. 3, para. 2.5.
111
WGHR, para. 37.
112
ALRC, p. 3, para. 2.7.
113
ALRC, p. 3, para. 2.5.
114
WGHR, para. 42.
115
WGHR, para. 43.
116
JS19, para. 3.2.
117
JS19, p. 4, para. 6.3. See also WGHR, para. 44.
118
JS18, paras. 3-6.
119
CSW, para. 12.
120
WGHR, para. 75.
121
JS19, paras 1 – 5 and recommendations, para. 6. See also, AI, p. 7.
122
AI, p. 4. See also WGHR, para. 40.
123
WGHR, para. 41.
124
JS12, para. 31.
125
GIEACPC, p. 1. See also CRIN, p. 3, recommendation 2.
126
PVCHR, p. 3.
127
HRW, p. 5.
128
See also JS11, para. 25.
129
JS11, para. 7.
130
JS11, para. 8.
131
JS4, para. 1. See also paras. 11, 20, 27, 31 and recommendations paras. 34-45.
132
JS10, para. 1.2 a., p. 3.
133
JS10, para. 1.2 c., p. 4.
134
OMGA, p. 3, para. 1.
135
JS 11, p. 4, recommendations, para. 15 b) and e).
136
JS3, para. 18.
137
ACJP, p. 6, recommendation 2.
138
CHRI, p. 3, para. 13.
139
CHRI, p. 3, para. 14.
140
CHRI, p. 3, para. 14. See also, recommendations, p. 4, para. 17.
141
ICJ, p. 5, para. 24, recommendation xii).
142
CHRI, para. 12.
143
WGHR, para. 58, recommendation.
144
ALRC, para. 5.8. See also ALRC, para. 2.9.
145
HRW, p.4, recommendations.
146
UNM-M, p. 6, recommendations, paras. 24 and 26. See also JS 12, p. 10, para. 33.
147
IFJ/HRFJK, p. 5.
148
JS22, p. 1, recommendation 1.
149
CHRI, p. 5, para. 19.
150
JS20, p. 6.
151
CHRI, p. 6, para. 24.
152
ICJ, p. 5, para. 24, recommendation (xiii).
153
HAQ, p. 4, para. 8.3.
154
JS14, p. 11, recommendation 17.
155
WGHR, para. 57.
156
PVCHR, p. 3.
157
HRW, p. 4. See also, WGHR, para. 34. JS 5, paras. 34 and 10; ZIF, p. 2, recommendation
1; UNM-M, p.5, recommendation para. 23; IFJ/HRFJK, p. 5 and JS13, recommendation, para. 40.
158
WGHR, para. 34. See also UNM-M, para. 14.
159
KIIR, p. 6. See also IFJ/HRFJK, p. 5.
160
WGHR, para. 66.
161
JS 6, p. 8, recommendation 1. See also JS 3, pp. 3-4; paras. 9-12; JS 14, p ara. 9, p.13.
162
JS21, para. 1.
163
JS21, para. 2.
164
JS21, para. 19.
165
JS5, p. 8, recommendation, para. 31.
166
JS5, pp. 4-5, para. 8.
167
PCI, p. 2 and recommendations p. 4. See also JS18, p. 8, recommendation 9.
168
JS18, p. 8, recommendation 15. See also recommendations 6-8.
169
WGHR, para. 76.
170
JW, p. 2.
171
JS15, paras. 5 – 11.
172
JS15, para. 21.
173
CRY, p. 4.
174
WGHR para. 23.
175
JS9, p. 13, recommendation 9.
176
JS11, para. 30.
177
ALRC, p. 6, para. 4.6.
178
WGHR, para. 11.
179
JS 11, p. 5, para. 17.
180
WGHR, para. 13.
181
WGHR, para. 7.
182
WGHR, para. 10.
183
WGHR, para. 20 and recommendation.
184
JS 8, p. 3, WV, p.2 and WGHR, para. 21.
185
JS8, pp. 3-5. See also WV, pp. 3-5.
186
WGHR, para. 17, See also JS 14; p. 8, para. 6.1.
187
JS2, p. 6, recommendations’ section.
188
WV, p. 4.
189
JS 2, p. 3, para. 6. See also JS 2, p.6, recommendations.
190
HRW, p. 5.
191
JS 17, p. 4. See also HRW p. 4.
192
HRW, p. 5, recommendations.
193
WGHR, para. 20, recommendation. See also WGHR, para. 19.
194
JS6, para. 1, p. 3.
195
JS15, para. 17.
196
JS3, paras. 15 and 17-18.
197
JS9, para. 27.
198
ERI, p. 4.
199
HRW, p. 4.
200
JS20, p. 16.
201
UNM-M, para. 22.
202
JS13, para. 33.
203
ERI, p.3, recommendation 3. See also HRW, recommendations p.5.
204
ERI, p. 5, recommendation 11.
205
NDN, p. 3.
206
NDN, pp. 10-11, recommendations.
207
ZIF, p.2, recommendation 2. See also JS13, para. 39.
208
IDMC, Chapter IV, p. 3/4.
209
IDMC, Chapter IV, p. 3/4.
210
JS7, paras. 9 – 44.
211
JS13, paras. 36-37.
212
IHRB, pp.3-4.
213
ALRC, paras. 4.1-4.6.
214
JS11, para. 33. See also paras 32 and 35.
215
IIPJHR, p. 2.
216
See also AI, recommendation, p.7; JS11, recommendation para 39; JS13,
recommendation, para. 39; and JS7, para. 29 and recommendation para 45.
217
AI, recommendation, p. 6.
218
JS11, p. 10, para. 38.
219
WGHR, para. 74. See also ZIF, p. 2, recommendation 4.
220
IDMC, p. 7.
221
WGHR, para. 21.
222
WGHR, recommendation, para. 22.
223
JS12, p. 2, para. 8.
224
JS12, p. 9, para. 29.
225
JS12, p. 10, para. 35.