Source: – HYPERLINK http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/4911A014E231BEE8C12572A0004C7938?OpenDocument http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/4911A014E231BEE8C12572A0004C7938?OpenDocument
March 16, 2007

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORT OF HIGH-LEVEL MISSION ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN DARFUR
16 March 2007

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed the report of its high-level mission on the situation of human rights in Darfur as it started its debate on the follow-up to the decisions and resolutions adopted by the Council.

Jody Williams, Head of the high-level mission, presenting the report, said it described a pattern of counter-insurgency by the Government of Sudan together with Janjaweed/militia. The report also noted that rebel forces were guilty of abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law. Civilians were victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which continued across the region. Killing, rape, torture, arbitrary arrest, repression of political dissent, and abuses of political freedoms occurred with chilling frequency. Ineffective mechanisms of justice, the free flow of weapons, the absence of meaningful disarmament, and a climate of impunity had left the region a stranger to the rule of law. 

Ms. Williams said critical needs for improving the situation of human rights in Darfur were numerous. Among the most pressing, the report identified enhanced protection for civilians, renewed progress toward sustainable peace, expanded humanitarian space, increased accountability for perpetrators, programmes to address root causes, serious efforts to ensure the implementation of existing recommendations from human rights bodies, and compensation for victims of human rights violations. Every State had the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. When a State was unable or unwilling to do so, it was the responsibility of the international community to take action to ensure effective protection. 

Sudan, speaking as a concerned country, said the Council was set up as a substitute for the Commission on Human Rights in order to achieve certain objectives, such as moving away from politicisation, selectivity and double standards. Today, unfortunately, they had witnessed a conspiracy against Sudan for political objectives. The unjust report, made up by five persons who had visited a country other than Sudan to decide on issues about Sudan, was not impartial, and they had gone beyond their mission, which was to assess the situation of human rights in Sudan, not from outside, and to assess the needs of Sudan, and not to assess those needs from another country. 

Sudan said it had not in any way refused to grant the mission visas: it said it had a reservation about one member, who had previously made declarations about his opinions, before being appointed, and had condemned Sudan before the mission began. The mission was clearly pre-written, and would be of no use for achieving peace in Darfur. The Council could not achieve its function if it were not fair and just. The report should be excluded, as it had no legitimacy and legal standing. It was faulty, and should not be discussed in the Council, nor adopted, as it was of no use. 

In the discussion that followed, speakers were divided between rejection of the legitimacy of the report, and support for it. Some speakers said the legitimacy of the mission should not be in question as it had fulfilled its task and now the Human Rights Council should seize the opportunity to act. They said the report of the high-level mission had been formulated from credible and reliable information, and clearly showed the gravity of the situation in Darfur. Other speakers pointed out that Sudan had joined the consensus to create the high-level mission and had promised cooperation. However, they said the composition of the mission had been flawed and the technical failings of its membership and constitution were deplored. The failure to visit Darfur and report objectively and accurately posed grave problems and undermined the validity of the mission’s report. 

Speaking this morning were the Representatives of Germany on behalf of the European Union, Algeria on behalf of the League of Arab States, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Sri Lanka on behalf of the Asian Group, Zambia, Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh France, China, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Ghana, Cuba, Malaysia, Algeria, Argentina, India, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, Finland, Azerbaijan, Finland, Poland, Canada, Senegal, Morocco, Mexico, Switzerland, Bahrain, Tunisia and Brazil. 

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its discussion on reports presented by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and others after hearing Cyprus, Colombia, Turkey and Cambodia speak in right of reply.

Under follow-up to the decisions of the Council, a statement by Lebanon was heard after the Council agreed to postpone the presentation of the update of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, which was formed by the second special session, to the fifth session of the Council in June.

Concerning the resolution adopted by the first special session in which the Council decided to dispatch an urgent fact-finding mission headed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard, the Council agreed to the wish of Professor Dugard to discuss this issue within the context of the interactive dialogue with other Special Procedures mandate holders next week. 

With regard to the decision of the third special session to dispatch a high-level fact-finding mission to travel to Beit Hanoun in the occupied Palestinian territories to make recommendations on ways and means to protect Palestinian civilians against any further Israeli assaults, the Council agreed to hear a presentation by a member of the mission next week. 

When the Council resumes its work at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will continue its discussion on the report of the high-level mission on the situation of human rights in Darfur.


Report and Letter on Situation of Human Rights in Darfur

The Council has before it the report of the High-Level Mission on the situation of human rights in Darfur pursuant to Human Rights Council decision S-4/101 (A/HRC/4/80), which was carried out from 5 February to 5 March 2007 in Geneva, Addis Ababa, N’Djamena, Abeche and the refugee camps of Eastern Chad. Having determined that the effective protection of civilians in Darfur was the central issue at hand, the Mission decided to employ an analysis drawn from the responsibility to protect. With the recruitment by the Government of proxy militias to respond to the armed rebellion in the region, civilians emerged as the primary targets and victims. Government forces often acted in concert with Janjaweed/militia, including in violations of human rights. Rebel movements also engaged in human rights abuses. Armed banditry and criminal activities have increased significantly. Numerous efforts by the international community have not been successful in ending the conflict. Even after the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement, war continues and the human rights situation has further deteriorated. Today, millions are displaced, at least 200,000 are dead, and conflict and abuse are spilling over the border into Chad. Making matters worse, humanitarian space continues to shrink, and humanitarian and human rights actors are increasingly targeted. Killing of civilians remains widespread, including in large-scale attacks. Rape and sexual violence are widespread and systematic. Torture continues. Arbitrary arrest and detention are common, as is repression of political dissent, and arbitrary restrictions on political freedoms. Mechanisms of justice and accountability, where they exist, are under-resourced, politically compromised, and ineffective. Darfur suffers from longstanding economic marginalization and underdevelopment, and the conflict has resulted in further impoverishment. As violations and abuses continue unabated, a climate of impunity prevails. For its part, the international community, acting through the United Nations and the African Union, has intervened with diplomatic, humanitarian, human rights and development assistance, but the vast majority of its recommendations remain unimplemented by the Government, and effective protection for civilians is yet to be secured. Critical needs for improving the situation of human rights in Darfur include enhanced protection; renewed progress towards peace; expanded humanitarian space; increased accountability for perpetrators; programmes to address root causes; efforts to ensure the implementation of existing recommendations from authoritative human rights bodies; and compensation for the victims of violations of human rights. To these ends, the mission makes a number of specific recommendations for action by the Human Rights Council, the Government, rebel movements and the international community. 

The Council has before it the note verbale dated 21 February 2007 from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Sudan to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the secretariat of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/4/G/2), enclosing a copy of the message of Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sudan, dated 18 February 2007 to Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, concerning the visit of the Human Rights Council’s High-Level Mission to the Sudan, established in accordance with Council decision S-4/101. In his letter, the Foreign Minister refers to what has transpired about the entry visas to Sudan to the High-Level Mission of the Human Rights Council. He underscores that while Decision S-4/101 was adopted by consensus and accepted by the Sudan, yet his Government expressed reservations about the composition of the Mission. They believe it is their legitimate right, as a sovereign State, to ascertain the impartiality, neutrality and objectivity of that Mission. Citing letters received from the Head of Mission, Judy [sic] Williams, in which she deeply regrets that visas had not been issued and informs the Sudan that such action would be considered denial of access to the Sudan, the Sudanese Foreign Minister emphasizes the Sudan's categorical rejection of the provocative manner in addressing sovereign States. There is solid ground to believe that it is ill intended, prejudiced and lacking respect for the country and its people. The letter ends affirming Sudan's commitment to receiving an independent, impartial, objective and neutral mission.

Presentation of Report on Situation of Human Rights in Darfur

JODY WILLIAMS, Leader of the High-Level Mission to Sudan, said that she was pleased to report that the High-Level Mission had succeeded in carrying out the tasks mandated to it under the Human Rights Council decision S-4/101. A detailed account of their work, findings and recommendations was contained in the report. As requested by the Council’s decision, the report contained a situation assessment. It described a pattern of counter-insurgency by the Government of Sudan together with Janjaweed/militia. It also noted that rebel forces were guilty of abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law. Civilians were victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which continued across the region. Killing, rape, torture, arbitrary arrest, repression of political dissent, and abuses of political freedoms occurred with chilling frequency. Ineffective mechanisms of justice, the free flow of weapons, the absence of meaningful disarmament, and a climate of impunity had left the region a stranger to the rule of law. 

Deprivation and denial of economic and social rights, rooted in decades of economic marginalization and underdevelopment, had been further exacerbated, Ms. Williams said. The conflict continued to fester. Millions were displaced and more than 200,000 were dead. The report also contained a needs assessment. It was affirmed that critical needs for improving the situation of human rights in Darfur were numerous. Among the most pressing, it identified enhanced protection for civilians, renewed progress toward sustainable peace, expanded humanitarian space, increased accountability for perpetrators, programmes to address root causes, serious efforts to ensure the implementation of existing recommendations from human rights bodies, and compensation for victims of human rights violations. Every State had the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. When a State was unable or unwilling to do so, it was the responsibility of the international community to take action to ensure effective protection. 

In its recommendations, the mission had called upon the international community to take urgent action to protect the people of Darfur, Ms. Williams said. It was proposed that this Council addressed these violations, established a special mechanism to monitor the situation and pressed for protection and accountability, and supported the establishment of an independent national human rights commission to further protection on the ground. The mission had also had called on the international community to ensure the effective protection of civilians in Darfur by deploying the proposed peacekeeping/protection force, cooperating with the International Criminal Court, and pressing for the implementation of outstanding resolutions on Darfur. The Government of Sudan was called upon to respect its international obligations by admitting the proposed United Nations / African Union force, removing obstacles to humanitarian assistance and implementation of the many outstanding recommendations of United Nations human rights mechanisms. The situation of human rights in Darfur remained grave. Sudan had not met its responsibility to protect. The Human Rights Council must take action to alleviate the suffering of innocent civilians. 


Statement by Sudan as Concerned Country

MOHAMED ALI ELMARDI (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, said the Council was set up as a substitute for the Commission in order to achieve certain objectives, such as moving away from politicisation, selectivity and double standards. Today, unfortunately, they had witnessed a conspiracy against Sudan for political objectives. The unjust report, made up by five persons who had visited a country other than Sudan to decide on issues about Sudan, was not impartial, and they had gone beyond their mission, which was to assess the situation of human rights in Sudan, and not from outside, and to assess the needs of Sudan, and not to assess those needs from another country. In the past period, Sudan had showed unprecedented cooperation and flexibility, believing this would be enough to help the international community, as represented by the Council, to help Sudan to achieve peace and stability. Instead, today there were only negative indications about those who were fighting the central Government, destroying Governmental facilities and infrastructure, killing people, and destroying development and services of the country. These were the people who were rewarded by the report. 

The people of Sudan and the African Group had commended the Abuja Peace Agreement, and called on those who had not signed it to do so, threatening sanctions if they did not. Since then, the international community had been totally silent - no measures whatsoever were taken against those who were carrying arms and combating the legitimate Government. There were continuing reports of 200,000 people killed in Darfur, and the number had remained the same for three and a half years. If it were true, then the figure should have increased. However, this exaggerated number had remained unchanged. This meant the situation in Darfur was improving. The mission could have seen for itself that the situation in Darfur was much better than ever before. Sudan had not in any way refused to grant the mission visas: it said it had a reservation about one member, who had previously made declarations about his opinions, before being appointed, and had condemned Sudan before the mission began. The mission was clearly pre-written, and would be of no use for achieving peace in Darfur. The Council could not achieve its function if it were not fair and just. The report should be excluded, as it had no legitimacy and legal standing. It was faulty, and should not be discussed in the Council, nor adopted, as it was of no use. The Head of the Mission appointed by her own decision a body or took on herself something that was not in the mandate of the Council, namely the proposal of sanctions. 

General Debate on Report on Situation of Human Rights in Darfur

MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it had not been easy to reach consensus on the high-level mission, but they had and the Government of Sudan had supported the decision. However, the Sudanese Government did not cooperate with the mission. The mission was unable to visit Darfur, and one member resigned, but the legitimacy of the mission was not the problem. It fulfilled its task and now the Human Rights Council must act on the basis of the recommendations of the report. Human rights violations by Government forces and rebel groups included sexual violence, forced recruitment of children, and internally displaced persons. The Council had to initiate concrete measures to protect human rights in Darfur and to seize the opportunity both for the sake of the people of Sudan and the credibility of the Council. 

LAZHAR SOUALEM (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, that the League of Arab States was not commenting on the substance of document A/HCR/4/80 because it did not consider that the document had the requisite legitimacy. This was because of the following reasons: the high-level mission was finally not composed of the five qualified persons, and one of the persons appointed was the subject of legitimate suspicion for having already taken publicly a stand against the Government of Sudan. The League of Arab States felt that these facts constituted grave flaws, which affected the legitimacy of the said document. Such difficulties should have led the mission to defer its departure, and not seek from the Council to go to Ethiopia and to Chad, which it had not been asked to travel to. In addition, the Council should take a position on the fact that the proper theme of the mission should not be to investigate with respect to Darfur the degree of application of the responsibility to protect principle; rather it should be the dual objective and reliable information assessing both the human rights situation in Darfur and the needs of Sudan. 
The high-level mission by persons, who, contrary to relevant mandate-holders, did not have up-to-date first-hand knowledge of areas of human rights assessment entrusted to them, must rely to a greater extent on direct access to these areas. The acceptance by Sudan and by the groups to which it belonged including the Arab Group to co-sponsor the request for the special session, which had led to the endorsement of both Sudan and the regional groups of the final decision of the special session, had been a refreshing change from the past stonewalling pf previous special sessions. The way that this situation was dealt with constituted a momentous precedent for the future at a time when the Council was engaged in institution building. This Council needed to encourage, not sanction, expressions of good will addressed through dialogue and cooperation as mandated by the General-Assembly resolution 60/251.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC was unable to comment on the contents of the report on the human rights situation in Darfur, as doubts had been raised about its status: the report had not been written by the entire mission. One of the members was obliged to withdraw, and the Government had expressed concerns about another member. The mandate adopted for the mission by consensus at the fourth special session clearly stated that the mission was to assess the human rights situation in Darfur and the needs of the Sudan in this regard. At no place was the concept of the “responsibility to protect” reflected in the Council’s decision. This concept, as the Member States of the Council knew, had multiple political and security dimensions, that went beyond the mandate given to the mission. 

The Council had recognised and welcomed the cooperation established by the Government of Sudan with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, and had asked the Government of Sudan to continue to intensify this cooperation. The mission should have been able to build on this cooperation. After all, the Council was created to promote human rights through dialogue and cooperation rather than selectivity and targeting. The interest of the people of Sudan was not served by a list of condemnatory recommendations. The human rights of the men, women and children, and the humanitarian situation in Darfur could only be improved through the cooperation of the Government of Sudan and assistance from the international community. 

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said that at the fourth special session of the Council, the Government of Sudan had showed its commitment to cooperate on decision S-4/101. The mission had not been able to carry out its mandate. Thus the outcome of the mission appeared to be incomplete. Ambassador Wibisono had briefed the Asian Group on his decision to withdraw from the mission and support for his decision by the Asian Group had been conveyed in writing. 

LOVE MTESA (Zambia) said Zambia’s position had been very clear on the situation of human rights in Darfur, as expressed during the fourth special session of the Human Rights Council held in December 2006. Its position had not changed. Zambia did regret the fact that the high-level mission that was established did not go to Sudan to assess the situation of human rights in Darfur and the needs of Sudan as mandated by the Council. This was a major setback for the Human Rights Council. Zambia was very much aware that the United Nations had also accepted reports written by fact-finding missions on situations in countries that they had not been able to visit for one reason or another. This was the case with regard to South Africa during the days of the apartheid regime and then Rhodesia during the time of the illegal racist regime. United Nations teams ended up in Zambia, which was a front line state then. 

Zambia considered that as Human Rights Council, the principles of objectivity, non-selectivity, avoidance of double standards and non-politization should be pursued. The collective concern was to uphold and defend human rights everywhere. Prolonged discussions of procedures in an urgent matter that was before the Council seemed to Zambia to be just one way of diverting the attention of the Council from doing what it was expected to do. The Council risked to end up like the discredited Human Rights Commission. Zambia emphasized that for the sake of the credibility of the Council, its members and the victims of human rights violations all around the world, the importance of full compliance, implementation and follow up to all the resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council should be ensured. 

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said as the Council, still in its first year, was embarking on its new journey, it was important to underscore that its success would depend on whether or not it could ensure that all of its resolutions and decisions were duly implemented. The decision taken at the fourth special session established and dispatched a mission to assess the human rights situation in Darfur and the needs of the Sudan in this regard. Indonesia had repeatedly called for a mission to the country to be part of the solution, not part of the problem; this could be realised only if the mission was able to work according to its mandate to seek a solution. It was important for the Council to discuss and reflect on how to deal with situations in which a mission of inquiry that it established was unable to undertake a country visit, and on the mission’s membership characteristics. 

There were several decisions by the special sessions that could not be implemented for a number of different reasons. If the Council failed to follow up on its decisions, this would be costly for its credibility. Similar problems had occurred in the past which had potentially raised procedural and legal issues, but most of the time they had been papered over by overriding political perceptions and predilections of the members of the forum. These old ways should be changed. Country-specific issues and special session decisions were those that were most rife with accusations of politicisation, double standards, and selectivity. They had always been the most controversial. The Council should put its mind together to devise procedural ways that would make it more difficult for political bias and discrimination to find their way into the process and procedure of a special session. 

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said Japan regretted that the high-level mission could not visit Darfur. This meant the report had its limits, but should be accepted by the Council as the best effort of the high-level mission, based on the best information available. It was hoped the Government of Sudan would accept the recommendations and endeavor to implement the recommendations of the various resolutions. 

TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh) said Bangladesh associated itself with the statement of Sri Lanka on behalf of the Asian Group. Bangladesh believed that the Human Rights Council must play a paramount role in the protection and promotion of human rights. The Council should address situations of gross and systematic violations of human rights, without selectivity and with equal attention. Human rights should be concerned about human beings and human values and should be kept above politics and political manoeuvring. An allegation against the previous Commission was that it was paying more attention to political issues that to human rights; the members of the present Council had a duty to guard against repetition of the past mistakes. Bangladesh hoped that the members of the Council were dealing with the violations of human rights and not with the political issues associated with Darfur. Bangladesh was deeply concerned about the media reports on alleged human rights violations in Darfur. The Council had rightly decided to send a high-level mission to assess the situation on the ground. 

In a remarkable gesture, the Sudanese Government had welcomed the decision and expressed their full cooperation with the mission. Bangladesh had hoped that the high-level mission would consist of responsible, competent persons with integrity and well-known impartiality. Legitimate concerns of the Sudanese Government had not been taken into consideration while forming the team. The process through which the mission had been set up raised many questions. The outcome was the expression of the views of some members, prepared without seeing the situation in Darfur and the needs of Sudan. The current situation in the Council did not serve the cause of the people of Darfur nor did it satisfy the concerns of those who wanted a change for the better. 

CHRISTOPHE GUILHOU (France) said during the special session, the Member States of the Council agreed to recognise the gravity of the humanitarian situation and of human rights in Darfur, and decided to send a mission. The President of Sudan took it upon himself to cooperate fully with the mission. It was greatly regrettable that this agreement to cooperate had no effect; it was not understandable, nor was it acceptable. It was hoped that in future Sudan would live up to the agreements that it undertook. The mission had returned a report of high quality. The evaluation confirmed all fears, and revealed urgent needs. The civil population was a victim of numerous murderous attacks. The rebels, as well as the Governmental forces and the militia they supported, bore the responsibility for these. 

The entire world knew that crimes among the worst had been orchestrated with the implication of the Sudanese authorities. Those who were largely responsible for these crimes had not been brought to justice, due to the climate of impunity which prevailed, and the refusal of the Government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. It was the primary responsibility of the Government of Sudan to protect the civil population. The Government should agree to the deployment of an international force to Darfur according to the three-phase approach suggested by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Addis Ababa on 16 November 2006. The deployment of this force was urgent. Secondly, the Government of Sudan should fully cooperate with the Council and all United Nations mechanisms. The Council should ensure the implementation of the numerous recommendations that had been formulated by the different pertinent bodies and mechanisms for the protection of human rights since the beginning of the Darfur conflict in order to put an end to these violations. 

LA YIFAN (China) said China associated itself with the statement made on behalf of the Asian Group and understood the decision of the Ambassador of Indonesia to resign from the Mission. Owing to the resignation and problems of constitution, the mission that was nominated did not properly exist, and it had failed to make a visit on site. The mission’s objectivity, authenticity, and accuracy were called into question. The mission had no legal status. The mandate had not been implemented. The efforts to make the mission a consensus-driven initiative was applauded, but it was deplored that the technical matter of the composition of the mission could not be agreed. 

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said that Saudi Arabia had welcomed the special session on Darfur because of the situation there. The Sudanese Government had taken positive steps. Saudi Arabia would continue to cooperate with members of the Council. Unfortunately, the report had been prepared without the mission visiting Sudan, and therefore Saudi Arabia had reservations about the report. Saudi Arabia acknowledged the need to cooperate with the Government of Sudan in order to improve the situation in the region. Saudi Arabia would continue to cooperate with the Council concerning the situation in Darfur or in any other region of the world. 

BOUDEWIJN J.VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands) said in full support and in addition to the statement of the European Union, the status of the report was beyond doubt. Efforts to call into question the legitimacy were illegitimate, and were aimed as a distraction from the situation. Whilst the Council debated the situation, thousands continued to suffer, be raped, and killed. The report was very much welcomed, and the importance lay both in the situation assessment and the needs assessment. Based on extensive consultations of the mission in Addis Ababa with many groups, there was confidence in the report, which was based largely on reliable African sources, and was trustworthy and legitimate. 

On the needs assessment, the report contained valuable recommendations as to how the Council should proceed. The Council should focus on improving implementation on what was already in place, and should secure a meaningful follow-up to the report, as this was owed to the people of Darfur. 

MARINA KORUNOVA (Russian Federation) said Russia had supported the discussion on Darfur at the fourth special session and had hoped that the mission would be balanced and representative, including regionally. There had been pressure and manipulation on the constitution of the mission, and the element of cooperation had been lost in the process. Russia had hoped the mission would encourage open and transparent dialogue, but this did not happen. The status of the report had been questioned and commenting on it was not desirable. The key condition had been the signing of a Darfur peace agreement, as called for in numerous UN resolutions. All UN decisions should be based on supporting constructive dialogue. The main purpose of the Council in regard to Sudan was to develop constructive proposals and mobilize effective assistance to the Government there. 

KWABENA BAAH-DOUDU (Ghana) said that when it was decided last year to send a high-level mission to Darfur to assess the human rights situation in that region and to assess the needs to Sudan, the world began to take the Council more seriously. Regarding the views exposed this morning to the Council on why the report should be rejected, Ghana believed that one could not pretend that the report did not exist. Ghana might not agree with all the recommendations made in the report but it did not mean that the mission did not do its work. It was regrettable that the team had faced problems. Ghana thought that whatever decision should be taken, it should contribute to the people of Darfur. A decision should be taken to enhance peace, security and finally the human rights situation in Darfur. The report could not be rejected just because of one member of the mission. 

There had been several instances where reports had been considered despite the fact that the mandated mission could not visit the countries concerned. It was in the Council’s interest to ensure that no decision was taken precluding it from considering situations, which might need its urgent attention in the future. All efforts should be deployed to bring the situation in Darfur to normalcy. Ghana wanted the Council to take note of the high-level mission’s report and set up a team of experts to go to Darfur in order to elaborate a more comprehensive report. 
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba had supported the holding of a special session to consider the human rights situation in Darfur, and had also supported the three previous special sessions. The most significant element of the fourth special session was the adoption of the resolution by consensus. This was possible by combining the will of the Government of Sudan to cooperate, and avoiding inflammatory statements. The serious human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur was cause for concern for the international community. It was a complex and delicate situation, and its root causes were based in the colonial past, on the artificial divisions imposed on Africa, and the economic and strategic interests of the Western powers. In the process of the Darfur mission, there were problems and a lack of trust. What needed to be done now was to find a way of addressing the questions relating to compliance with the mandate set by the fourth special session. 

The Government of Sudan had not given up on its will to cooperate. Any measure adopted by the Council could only be effective if it had the full cooperation of the Government. The punitive approach should not be accepted; solutions, cooperation and constructive dialogue, as well as a response to the needs of those affected should be favoured. A solution to the situation in Darfur called for a strategy of development and cooperation, rather than the imposition of sanctions. The situation should not be used for selfish political interests, but should be used to enhance the capacity of the Council. 

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) associated Malaysia with the statements of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Asian Group, and said it had always encouraged a constructive approach, genuine dialogue with engagement and provisions to States as they requested it. The cooperative and constructive spirit of the Council had resulted in the consensus decision on Darfur, and Sudan’s preparedness to cooperate in the process was commendable, but had not been reciprocated. The high-level mission was incomplete because of membership questions and the deficiency of its report. A pragmatic approach was needed, with all working towards establishing the credibility of the Council. 

ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), referring to the statements made by the Argentinean Foreign Minister, said Argentina was concerned about the progress made to improve the situation in Darfur. The situation in Darfur was complex but also revealed a picture of constant human rights violations. The Council must assume its role as stated in resolution 60/251. If the Council would not comply with its role concerning the situation in Darfur, other institutions and organizations would see it necessary to do so themselves. If such a case of non-action in view of violent human rights violations should take place and if the Council should not comply with its functions, the system of the United Nations must act through other instances. 

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said the Council was assembled to review the progress achieved in the implementation of the decision on the situation of human rights in Darfur. The African Group, including the country concerned, had been part of the consensus resolution on the holding of the session, as well as the decision arising there, and Algeria was committed today to a consensus decision. However, there were problems with the report: the mission had not fulfilled its task, as it had not reached Darfur, nor was its membership as the Council had mandated. The mission, whose mandate was to assess the human rights situation in Darfur and to assess the needs of Sudan, had determined that the situation did not require a human rights fact-finding mission in Darfur. This decision was taken before the visa issue became a problem. 

If there were any doubts as to whether the report were to be a desk study or not, then the debate that took place at the special session would have dispelled any misunderstandings. The humanitarian crisis in Darfur was a situation of concern for all. Algeria and other delegations welcomed the reiterated commitment of the Government of Sudan to cooperate with the international community to find a long-lasting solution to the crisis, as well as the cessation of violence and the delivery of humanitarian aid to those in need. Those who had not signed the Abuja Agreement should join the peace process. The Council should address the situation in good faith, and should avoid setting an ominous precedent at this formative stage of the new Council, and should ensure transparency in order to take this issue forward. 

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said the Indian delegation had urged all parties to implement the peace agreement. The adoption of a consensus decision 4/401 and the establishment of the mission had been a high point in the Council. It was important that the mission fulfill its mandate and a modality for completion of the mission’s mandate should be found through negotiation, enabling proper consideration of the recommendations contained in that report at the next session of the Council. 
CHOI HYUCK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that the human rights situation in Darfur remained grave and innocent civilians continued to suffer and die. The world was watching the Council today and how it would respond to the situation. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea regretted some failures in the work of the mission. There were questions on how to deal with the report. However, considering the urgency of the situation in Darfur, a substantial decision should be made. The high-level mission did not fulfil its mandate completely. Practical measures had however been put forward. The Council should address the situation in Darfur on the basis of the report and find measures that all stakeholders should hold up to. The credibility of the Council was at stake today. 

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom deeply regretted that the mission had been unable to visit Sudan. All States should cooperate with the mechanisms of the Council no matter how they were created. No State could allow a veto over the composition of any team or mission dispatched by the Council. Unless States respected these most fundamental principles, the ability of the Council to deliver on its mandate would be substantially impaired. The Government of Sudan knew the composition of the mission when the Presidential assurance was given that it would be able to visit Sudan. 

Some delegations could raise procedural and other spurious objections to the report and to the mission, but this was to miss the point. The Government of Sudan stood accused of failing in its responsibility to protect its own people from abuse, attack, insecurity and displacement. Reliable attested reports from the African Union and now the mission demonstrated that attacks on civilians, including by aerial bombing, continued, that attacks on humanitarian workers by Governmental forces, militias, and rebels continued, and that widespread and systematic rape and forced displacement continued. Concern should centre upon the plight of innocent people, about which the Government of Sudan continued to remain in denial. To debate the procedural aspects of a report was to try to blind the Council to the reality of the situation on the ground in Darfur, and this was unacceptable. 

MAMMAD TALIBOV (Azerbaijan) said the report presented by some members of the mission was dubious. Physical presence in the Darfur region was essential, otherwise judgments would be based on presumed prior knowledge or witness accounts of people outside the country. There was no substitute for information obtained on the ground. Many had congratulated the Council on its decision to dispatch a mission, and a new culture of collegiality appeared to be emerging. Azerbaijan hoped the Council’s credibility would not be damaged by the splits in the Council shown over the Darfur issue. The most important goal was to be sure not to exacerbate the situation on the ground, let alone improve it. Azerbaijan agreed with the claim that much had been achieved together on the Darfur issue, and hoped that this spirit would continue. 

VESA HIMANEN (Finland) said that Finland fully endorsed the statement made by the Ambassador of Germany earlier today on behalf of the European Union in this regard. The process was conducted successfully and led to the consensual adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in Darfur, which was inclusive and genuinely cross regional. Finland believed that both the process itself and the ensuing outcome were very important for the credibility of this Council. Against this background, it was very regrettable that the mission had not had access to Sudan. 

However, the mission had been able to fulfil its mandate and produce its report as mandated by the Council, he said. Finland sincerely hoped that the spirit of consensus and cooperation, which existed during the last special session, would return. The follow up of the recommendations in the mission’s report was now the next task. The very serious situation in Darfur required that the Council act efficiently. 

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said a tangible result had been obtained at the fourth special session, and the Council was then very confident that the mission would be able to undertake its work without opposition. It was disappointing that the mission could not enter Sudan. It had however decided to continue its duties, and this decision was supported, due to the gravity of the situation. The report had been formulated from credible and reliable information, and clearly showed the gravity of the situation in Darfur. It provided a number of concrete recommendations which should be urgently applied. The level of implementation of previous recommendations remained low, and this should be changed. 

Cooperation was a crucial element for an effective Council, and the Sudanese authorities should cooperate with the Council, and implement its decisions. This call applied to all States. The objective report presented necessitated a concrete follow-up. Special Procedures had an important role to play in this context, in particular the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan. The Council should and could not remain silent in the situation. It should not focus on a procedural debate, but try to focus on concrete follow-up to the report. Nobody questioned the gravity of the situation. It was high time to act: it was the credibility and legitimacy of the Council that was at stake. The tragic situation of innocent people who were abandoned by those who should protect them was however far more important. 

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) expressed appreciation for the high-level mission and the Sudanese Government’s willingness to cooperate. It was regretted that visas were not issued to the mission and that it could not visit the Darfur region, but the report of the mission should nonetheless remain valid. Canada called on the spirit of cooperation to continue, and urged the Council to act, together with the Government of Sudan and the international community, to work towards a genuine improvement in the human rights situation. It was regretted that violence continued unabated, especially sexual and gender-based violence, and that the delivery of humanitarian assistance was compromised by rampant lawlessness and violence. Canada applauded the decision to use “responsibility to protect” as a framework, but said that obstacles remained to peacekeepers. The report highlighted measures that the international community and the Council could take. Canada referred to the importance of a procedure to monitor and regulate violations with a capacity to visit the region and urged the founding of an independent National Human rights Commission in Sudan. 

The Council had heard opposing views this morning over the legitimacy of the mission. The controversy in the Council over whether the mission was valid, and the nature of its composition, and how and why the participation of a member or members had been questioned or objected to, was placing the credibility of the Council at stake. 

MOUSSA BOCAR LY (Senegal) said that with the establishment of the Human Rights Council, the international community had marked a major milestone concerning the change in mentalities and the reinforcement of dialogue and cooperation. Those two fundamental principles should guide the Council in its mandate in the promotion and protection of human rights. There were great expectations and everything must be done to avoid failure and to ensure that the efficiency and the credibility of the Council were upheld. Through a joint effort, human rights in Darfur should be protected. The report could of course lead to some questions concerning its status but it may not be considered as void without menacing the credibility of the Council. 

Sudan should be supported in order to achieve lasting peace for the Sudanese people, Senegal believed. The right replies should be found with the involvement of all stakeholders. The position of Senegal could not be interpreted as hostile or unfavourable to Sudan because it was a friend of the country. The Government of Senegal was itself deeply endorsed in the search of a solution for the crisis in Darfur. The international community should reinforce its support for the mission of the African Union in Sudan. 

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said when the African Group supported the request for the special session, it was seen as a positive and promising sign, and an expression of the common will to work in a spirit of cooperation and compromise in order to better serve the objectives for which the Council was created and for which the international community had a particular interest. The determination of the Sudanese Government to ensure the success of the mission had been appreciated. 

If consideration relating to the establishment of the mission, the way it was conducted and its result had led to varying evaluations, that should not stand in the way of the Council’s determination to look to the future, to rebuild dialogue and cooperation and work in the spirit of consensus that was enshrined in the consensus of the special session. However, if the meeting were to end with only recriminations and differences in view, then the Council would have failed to live up to its responsibilities. Wisdom and common sense called for the consensus to be rebuilt, as this was desperately required in order to enter the final stage for the creation of institutions and standard setting that the Council needed to achieve its fundamental objectives. 

JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) said it was worrying that a mission on the ground had been prevented through lack of cooperation. United Nations practices had been, since the time of apartheid, to consider reports independently of consideration of whether the results were unfavourable from a procedural standpoint. Also States had the opportunity to present their points of view. There should be genuine debate aimed at finding solutions that benefited human rights in particular cases, with full State cooperation in the process. Mexico appealed to all Member States of the United Nations to cooperate in implementing Council resolutions. 

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said that Switzerland acknowledged the report of the high-level mission. The evaluation, conforming to the resolution of December 2006, confirmed a multitude of information from different compliant and viable sources. The humanitarian and human rights situation was very serious in Darfur. It was the responsibility of the Council to dedicate itself without delay to this situation and to consecrate to the report a follow up constituting a credible and coherent response to the severe violations affecting the civilian population, and especially women and children. Switzerland had called upon Sudan to stop believing that violence would allow them to reach their political ends. Switzerland regretted that the mission, which was decided upon by consensus, could not take place in the planned conditions. 

The Sudanese Government should fully cooperate with the Council. The Council must decide on the follow up that should be given to it. Concerning the mechanism of the Special Procedures established in order to monitor the situation of human rights in Darfur, the question was raised on which kind of thematic special procedures would be used. 

ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain) said with reference to the document entitled report of the high-level mission on the situation of human rights in Darfur, there were reservations in view of the fact that it had procedural flaws. The decision of the Council in the special session had been that a high-level mission be sent to Darfur to assess the situation of human rights there, made up of five members. The document should have a different title, as one member resigned, and the other decided not to go to Chad, as this was not in the remit of the mission. Equitable geographical representation in the mission was also not respected. 

The decision of the special session of the Council had been welcomed by Sudan and other members of the Arab and African Groups. The Council’s objective was to protect and promote human rights; it needed to pave the path for the improvement of these, and should therefore facilitate the implementation of the Council’s decisions. The Council and the Government of Sudan should work together in a constructive manner. 

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said the Council had been able to reach consensus, with cooperation from the Government of Sudan, to dispatch the high-level mission to Darfur to assess the needs of Sudan there. Tunisia had hoped that the mission would assess the situation there directly, as intended by all parties. Tunisia hoped that procedural flaws in the composition of the mission would be corrected. Well-documented impartial information was crucial, along with the application of the principle of non selectivity, and the avoidance of politicization. It was necessary to facilitate cooperation with Sudan. Tunisia called on all parties to look forward, confident that it would pursue these efforts on the basis of consensus. 

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that Brazil was aware of the complex situation in Darfur. The crisis had deep roots that must be taken into consideration. The Council’s decision determining the mission to Darfur had been a landmark in the Council’s short history. It had shown that the Council was able to attach a great importance to human rights over matters of political nature. Brazil considered it important that the Council considered the report of the high-level mission to Darfur. The Council should not refuse to examine any report. This would constitute a regretful precedent. 

As Coordinator of the Group of Latin American Countries, Brazil wished that the decision taken on 9 February 2007 related to giving full support to the regional group to appoint the members of the mission to Darfur would be considered. Brazil had joined in the consensus to convene the special session on Darfur. The situation there deserved the full attention of the Council. Brazil as a county would continue to work on this issue. It believed that there was more room for dialogue within the forum of the Council. 



Report of High Commissioner on Follow-Up to Report of Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon

The Council has before it the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon (A/HRC/4/115), which describes the steps taken by the High Commissioner and her Office to implement resolution 3/3 of the Human Rights Council and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as contained in its report. The High Commissioner met with the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations at Geneva, on 2 February 2007, in order to consult on the report, its findings and recommendations. Furthermore, an inter-branch task force was set up within OHCHR in Geneva, in order to ensure a comprehensive and holistic approach to follow-up on the Commission’s recommendations. In addition, the OHCHR Regional Office’s ongoing collaboration with the Lebanese Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights is being strengthened. A capacity-building programme in the area of human rights law and international humanitarian law has been conducted, and more such trainings are being considered.


Statement by Lebanon

Following is a statement by Lebanon after the Council agreed to postpone the presentation of the update of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon to the fifth session:

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon) said the Lebanese Government had been engaging with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The resolution constituted a plan of action involving an interactive task force to ensure a comprehensive and holistic approach to the matter. For the High Commissioner to fulfill her mission this would need synergy, and the High Commissioner had sent letters to offices and agencies and awaited results. It involved negotiations with the Lebanese authorities. Time and energy would be required and he proposed extending the time to discharge these duties. Lebanon complimented the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on its work pursuant to the resolution and looked forward to working on the matter with the Office. 


Right of Reply on Debate on Reports by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and Others

JAMES DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), speaking in a right of reply, said with reference to the right to reply exercised by Turkey the day before according to which Turkey said it did not occupy Cyprus, and the use of names proper to Member States of the United Nations, the speaker wished to draw attention to Security Council Resolution 5/50, which condemned all secessionist Turkish stances. The General Assembly had demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Turkish forces from the Republic of Cyprus. Also in the resolution of the Security Council, it called upon all other States not to recognise any other State other than the Republic of Cyprus. 

CARLOS FRANCO (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply in response to allegations by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) made yesterday, said the State of Colombia had a standing invitation open to all treaty bodies and had invited the Office of the High Commissioner to remain there, and proposed Colombia to be one of first countries to undergo Universal Periodic Review. Colombia had already committed itself to overcoming the challenges in the High Commissioner’s report. Regarding improved effectiveness and legitimacy, Colombia invited NGOs to continue their independent work taking into account the achievements through joint work with the NGOs.

ASHGUL UGDUL (Turkey), speaking in a right of reply, said that when looking at the report concerning Cyprus, the comprehensive settlement was necessary to have human rights in Cyprus. It must be evident in view of the Turkish Cypriots support that Turkey was also committed to a comprehensive settlement. The Cypriots also expressed their commitment for that. So Turkey asked the question that if everyone was committed to resolve the conflict, why was this not done so far? Now, Working Groups were set up to work with both sides. The Greek side did not represent the island as a whole. 

CHHEANG VUN (Cambodia), speaking in a right of reply, said democracy was the appropriate value system for its people. Every Cambodian had the right to live their social, personal and political lives as they saw fit, and to benefit from the distribution of national income. Cambodia was building the country, promoting national reconciliation, justice, peace and social development. Progress had been made in all areas, and Cambodia was working for this unflaggingly, in order to protect human rights in the country. 

Cambodia expressed sincere thanks to all those who had worked and fought the Khmer Rouge to protect the human rights of Cambodians, and restore their right to life. The High Commissioner was thanked for her commitment to the human rights of the Cambodian people. During her visit she had expressed her support for the many years in which the people had worked for human rights, and the country would continue to work with her in order to strengthen human rights and democracy in Cambodia. Those countries that had contributed to economic development and to fighting poverty were also thanked.