A/HRC/17/11 safeguarded minority rights. The national curriculum was updated and textbooks were improved to promote tolerance. Steps were undertaken to teach Georgian language to national minorities. The public broadcaster aired news programmes in minority languages. 24. Positive quotas were established for educational institutions, which accepted students on the basis of examination in general aptitudes, conducted in Azeri, Armenian, Ossetian and Abkhazian languages. 25. Georgia acknowledged positive obligations under international law to protect human rights throughout its territory including in Abkhazia, Georgia, and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, Georgia. However it was unable to do so due to the occupation of these regions by a third country. The delegation stressed that no effective mechanisms existed for ensuring protection of human rights in these regions.1 26. The delegation noted that the human rights situation in these regions of Georgia was of concern to the international community. Various United Nations documents stressed the necessity of human rights protection in these regions and safe and dignified return of IDPs and refugees. 27. The delegation noted systematic unlawful restrictions discriminately exercised against ethnic Georgians in the occupied regions. Human rights violations included ethnically targeted violence, looting, violation of security and religious rights, hindering of freedom of movement and residence, destruction of property and forced passportization. These acts were aimed at preventing the safe and dignified return of ethnic Georgians. 28. The delegation recalled recent cases of property rights violations in the occupied regions. 1 The Russian Federation made the following point of order: the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia are independent States. Therefore the human rights situation in these two countries cannot be subject to discussion within the UPR of Georgia. The allegations of Georgia about the occupation of the mentioned territories are absurd. Russia does not exercise authority in the said countries and does not control their governing bodies, which have been formed by democratic means. In this regard we request you to call on the delegation of Georgia not to politicize the situation, but to do what it is supposed to do – consider the human rights violations in Georgia. We request to fully reflect this statement in the report of our session. In response, Georgia made a point of order objecting to the point of order raised by the delegation of Russian Federation. The Georgian Delegation stressed that it wanted to focus discussions strictly on the human rights and that it was unfortunate that Russia was trying to politicize the process. It was no secret that Russia challenged Georgia’s territorial integrity, even though Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty was recognized by the international community which was adequately reflected in the United Nations documents, including all Security Council resolutions adopted on the situation in Georgia since 1993 and all United Nations General Assembly resolutions adopted since 2008. Georgia called on Russia to respect the very essence of the Human Rights Council and concentrate on issues related to human rights. The Georgian side was ready to engage in a constructive discussion and reflect on all issues related to the human rights record in its country. Subsequently, the President recalled all delegations that, as per rule 113 of the rules of procedure, a point of order should focus on procedural matters. Debating of territorial issues was a substantive exercise. Moreover, those issues were more appropriately dealt with in other forums. The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review was not the competent body to discuss issues of a political or territorial nature. Consequently, he invited all delegations to focus on human rights issues, in the context of their statements. In that regard, he also reiterated that all States were entitled to their views. He asked that those be voiced in a respectful manner. He also appealed to all concerned to refrain from using the review to deal with bilateral issues as that ultimately undermined the principles of universality and goals of this mechanism. 5