Original Source: – HYPERLINK http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/CE1C769A47EBCD36C12572A7004D1047?OpenDocument http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/CE1C769A47EBCD36C12572A7004D1047?OpenDocument
March 23, 2007

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS TEXTS ON TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Holds Discussion with Independent Expert on Technical Cooperation and Advisory Services in Liberia; Discusses Country-Specific Mandates under Segment on Related Debate
23 March 2007

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted a decision on transitional justice, and a resolution on economic, social and cultural rights. The Council also held an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia, Charlotte Abaka, and continued its segment on related issues under which it discussed country-specific mandates, among other questions.

In the decision on transitional justice, adopted without a vote, the Council commended the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for its efforts in developing the issue of transitional justice and human rights, and encouraged OHCHR to continue and strengthen its important analytical and practical work regarding this complex issue.

In the resolution on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, adopted without a vote, the Council called upon all States to consider signing and ratifying, and the States parties to implement, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and also called upon all States to guarantee that economic, social and cultural rights should be exercised without discrimination of any kind. 

Switzerland and Portugal respectively introduced the two texts, and Senegal spoke in a general comment.

At the beginning of the meeting, Charlotte Abaka, the Independent Expert on technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia, told the Council that after 14 years of war, the Government and people of Liberia were committed to the respect, promotion and protection of human rights. Important national institutions like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Independent National Commission of Human Rights were not yet operative, but she had been personally involved in drafting the acts to establish them. For the sake of lasting peace, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission could not be allowed to fail. Liberia was a priority country for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Country Engagement Strategy and the Office should therefore be more active in its support, including through technical assistance.

In the segment on “related debate”, delegates raised a range of issues, and urged several of the countries under consideration by Special Procedures, especially Myanmar and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to cooperate further with the United Nations, pointing out that an example of this cooperation was Burundi, where the conditions on the ground had improved. Speakers said States should understand the necessity of cooperating, in particular with regards to the Special Procedures, as it was in the interest of all actors, including the concerned countries. Some said refusing to cooperate simply highlighted violations. 

Speaking this afternoon on Liberia were the representatives of Ghana, Germany for the European Union, United States, and Canada. Speaking under the Segment on the “related debate” were Germany on behalf of the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, France, Japan, Nigeria, Australia, Holy See and United States.

Also speaking in the “related debate” were the following non-governmental organizations: Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Anti-Slavery International, Worldview International Foundation, International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnics, Religious, Linguistic and other Minorities, Femmes Africa Solidarité, International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Nord Sud XXI, and Interfaith International. 

Speaking in right of reply were the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Canada, and Sudan. 

The next meeting of the Council will be on Monday 26 March at 10 p.m., when it will meet behind closed doors to continue its discussion under the confidential 1503 Procedure. In the afternoon, from 3 p.m., it will hold a second special event, which will be focused on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, before taking up reports from the Special Rapporteur on the effect of counter terrorism laws on human rights and the Special Rapporteur against torture .

Action on Decision and Resolution

In a decision (A/HRC/2/L.36) on transitional justice, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to commend the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for its efforts in developing the issue of transitional justice and human rights, inter alia by expanding the OHCHR presence in peace building operations, and encourages the OHCHR to continue and strengthen its important practical and analytical work regarding this complex issue.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland), introducing the decision on transitional justice (L.36), said that in societies that were in a post conflict situation, the establishment of a system of justice was a crucial prerequisite for peace. The text, in which the Human Rights Council was called upon to decide, was adopted by consensus in 2005. The text should strengthen the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on societies in transition. It requested the High Commissioner on Human Rights to continue to extend her presence in more areas and continue the work in transitional justice. Switzerland hoped that the draft decision would be adopted by consensus, as it was the case in 2005. 

In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.9) on the question of the realization in all countries
of economic, social and cultural rights, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon all States to consider signing and ratifying, and the States parties to implement, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; calls upon all States to guarantee that economic, social and cultural rights shall be exercised without discrimination of any kind; calls upon all States to secure progressively, through national development policies and with international assistance and cooperation, full realization of economic, social and cultural rights, giving particular attention to the individuals and communities living in extreme poverty; calls upon all States to promote the effective and wide participation of representatives of civil society in decision-making processes related to the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights; encourages the continuation of the work related to the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights carried out by all relevant special procedures of the Human Rights Council; encourages enhanced cooperation and increased coordination, between the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and United Nations bodies, specialized agencies or programmes, mechanisms of the Human Rights Council; encourages the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen its research and analytical capacities in the field of economic, social and cultural rights and to share its expertise and to strengthen the support for the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; takes note with interest of the report of the Secretary-General on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights (A/HRC/4/62); requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Council an annual report on the implementation of the present resolution; and decides to remain seized of this issue and to consider taking further actions in order to implement it.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), introducing draft resolution L.9 on the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, said in 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reaffirming their faith in the dignity and worth of the human person and setting civil, cultural, economic, social and cultural rights as fundamental human rights to which all individuals were entitled. History then separated this common set of human rights into civil and political rights on one side, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other, thus creating imbalances that still today hindered the achievement of the common ideal of free human beings being able to enjoy, everywhere in the world, their freedom from fear or want. 

The idea was not to give more attention to this set of rights at the expense of civil and political rights. Quite the opposite, the protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights enhanced the capacity of individuals to enjoy their civil and political rights and the protection and promotion of civil and political rights was fundamental for the full realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. The Council should not remain silent on an issue to which so many delegations rightly attached great importance. The resolution set the main and generic goals to be achieved regarding the promotion, protection and realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. The Council should be implementation-focused, and this was why the draft asked the Council to consider taking further actions in future sessions to implement the generic goals and principles it enshrined. 

MOUSSA BOCAR LY, (Senegal), speaking in a general comment, said the Senegalese delegation traditionally had supported this resolution. It would have liked to be able to join the list of co-sponsors. Had it been possible to change the draft concerning a mention of the right to food, it would have done. But co-sponsors did not wish to take this into account. It was hoped that any future resolutions of this nature would contain an amendment to make it possible to enshrine the right to food. 

Presentation of Report by Independent Expert on Technical Cooperation and Advisory Services in Liberia

CHARLOTTE ABAKA, Independent Expert on technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia, said that after 14 years of war the Government and people of Liberia were committed to the respect, promotion and protection of human rights. Important national institutions like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Independent National Commission of Human Rights were not yet operative, but she had been personally involved in drafting the acts to establish them. There were serious concerns over the rape law and its implementation. But the work of putting Liberia on the human rights map had only just begun, and there was guaranteed political will. The Human Rights Council should not let the people of Liberia down. 

The Liberia Partners Forum in Washington in February 2007 had produced a positive outcome, with pledges from several western countries to cancel Liberia’s debts. Funds otherwise needed to service debt could thus be redirected to implement programmes in support of improved economic and social rights. President Johnson-Sirleaf had travelled to neighbouring Guinea to commit her Government to prosecution of any Liberians traveling to Guinea to take part in mercenary activity. Anti-corruption proceedings were continuing, with the high profile prosecution of the former Director of the Bureau of the Budget. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission inaugurated in February 2006 had not made significant progress in achieving its mandate. Lack of leadership, technical challenges and internal disputes were the main reasons for this. But international partners remained supportive of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. For the sake of lasting peace, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission could not be allowed to fail. 

Liberia was a priority country for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Country Engagement Strategy and OHCHR should therefore be more active in its support, including through technical assistance. The Independent National Commission of Human Rights should comprise members acceptable to all Liberians, and there was information to suggest that the current candidates did not represent national diversity as required by the Independent National Commission of Human Rights Act. 

Interactive Dialogue on Technical Cooperation and Advisory Services in Liberia

PAUL ARYENE (Ghana) said there had been a number of positive events in Liberia recently. Ghana was encouraged by the progress made, considering the country’s immediate past, and called on the international community to continue to support it in these difficult moments. Liberia must succeed. 

MARTIN HUTH (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union wanted to thank the Independent Expert for her report on Liberia. Nevertheless, the European Union noted that the human rights situation was still far from satisfactory. The European Union noted that the report said there had only been one conviction, and asked whether there had been more convictions by now. In addition, the European Union would like to know what the future steps were for moving towards reconciliation in Liberia. Concerning the question of female genital mutilation, the European Union would welcome any legislation prohibiting this practice in Liberia. 
VELIA DE PIRRO (United States) said the United States commended the Government for its cooperation and pledged continued support for Liberia. The United States had been working with Monrovia on capacity building and measures to enhance the peace process. It had provided technical and other support to the national elections commission, person trafficking secretariat, child labour commission, justice sector training, as well as help in the form of a legal aid clinic to train mediators. The United States asked what was Ms. Abaka’s assessment on the state of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and how could the international community help in the process. 

CYNDY NELSON (Canada) said the report was detailed, and Ms. Abaka had worked actively in Liberia. Canada was encouraged by the progress of the Government of Liberia, which had succeeded in strengthening the legislative and political frameworks necessary to ensure effective human rights implementation. The National Plan of Action for the Prevention and Management of Gender Violence was a positive step. The Independent Expert should give her views on the progress of the plan, and how the international community could contribute to the progress in the country. What were the challenges that non-governmental organizations faced in attempting to facilitate legal redress for women and children, and what could be done to alleviate these challenges. 

Concluding Remarks by the Independent Expert on Technical Cooperation and Advisory Services in Liberia

CHARLOTTE ABAKA, Independent Expert on technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia, said that she wanted to thank all for their interest in the report of Liberia. With regard to the concerns raised by Canada, the only organization giving aid to women was the Liberian Women’s Lawyers Association, but it was only located in Monrovia, which posed a problem for people suffering from gender-based discrimination who lived outside of Monrovia. The judges that had been appointed should understand what gender-based violence really meant. Gender-based violence meant rape most of the time. She herself had witnessed a case where a 40-year-old man who raped a 9-year-old girl had gone on without being persecuted by justice. 

A continuing training of the judiciary side was therefore crucial, Ms. Abaka said. The recommendation was that Liberia should agree to accept judges from other countries that were facing similar cases. Liberia could learn from good practice in order to improve the situation. The High Commissioner for Human Rights was asked to assert and find a way to talk to the Government of Liberia to overcome this situation. Liberia could learn from the example from other countries, for instance South Africa. The progress on the action plan was just about to take off and she hoped to be able to give more details later on. 

But the situation was still very sad and often victims of rape were dying before their cases were looked upon, she said. Rape cases committed from peacekeeping troops were another important concern and should be addressed. The mood of the Liberians on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was very negative. Donors had sometimes rightly withheld funds. Again, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was asked to use her good offices to ensure that a proper plan of action could be implemented, because the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had so far not come up with such a plan. 

General Debate on “Related Issues”

CATHERINE CLARK, of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said the situation of ethnic and religious minorities in Myanmar showed no improvement. The freedom to choose one’s belief was a fundamental human right. There was outright hostility shown to Christians and Muslims. Even Buddhists from certain branches of the faith were under threat. Children of minority religions were separated from their families, religious practices were forbidden, and many people were in prison for their beliefs. Myanmar was urged to cooperate on the advancement of human rights and allow fact- finding missions into the country. 

STEVE GRAWSHAW, of Human Rights Watch, said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma/Myanmar provided a graphic picture of the severe and endemic human rights abuses that continued in that country. The need for the Human Rights Council to continue its consideration of Burma/Myanmar was very apparent; the work of the Special Rapporteur was crucial, to shed additional light on the situation, and the continuation of this mandate should be a priority within the ongoing review. The Council should also act now to call for the Government of Burma/Myanmar to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur, and to allow him immediate access to the country, as well as exploring how it could more effectively address this situation of gross and systematic violation of human rights. 

CHRISTIANE DEHOY, of Anti-Slavery International, said the Special Rapporteur had repeatedly called for an end to atrocities against the Rohingya community in Northern Arakan in Burma. There were many violations, including restriction of freedom of movement, withdrawal of citizenship, discrimination over marriage permissions and imprisonment. There were also vulnerable groups of internally displaced persons in eastern Burma. Among internally displaced persons, child malnutrition rates were twice the national average, and there was forced labour and destruction of food supplies and housing. Initiatives were necessary to address the plight of vulnerable communities in Burma, given the failure of the authorities to do so. 

BO KYI, of Worldview International Foundation, said in a joint statement that the organizations welcomed the latest report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma. In Burma, an estimated 50,000 children lived under the most brutal conditions. Burma had the largest number of child soldiers in the world. The vast majority were recruited into the State’s armed forces. The Human Rights Council was asked what steps it was preparing to take in order to respond to this challenge. The organizations wanted also to know what initiatives the Human Rights Council could take in order to enable the Special Rapporteur to visit the country before his mandate ended in June 2007. 

DAMIANOS SEREFIDIS, of International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic and Other Minorities, said Myanmar constituted a particular case of human rights violations which included not only violations of individual civil and political rights, but also grave violations of collective ethno-cultural rights related to the numerous minority ethno-cultural groups living in the country. Since the beginning of his mandate, and despite the important difficulties faced by not being allowed to conduct any fact-finding missions in the country since 2003, the Special Rapporteur had repeated expressed his concerns on the political developments in Myanmar, as well as on the continuous and extensive military campaigns in the ethnic areas. 

AGNES TAYLOR LEWIS, of Femmes Africa Solidarité, said the Mano River Women’s Peace Network had received a UN prize for its work in Liberia, and the Network urged the international community to continue rendering assistance to the people of Liberia and its President, who had appointed many women to senior positions and received a UN women peacekeeping force to protect women from violence. 

MARTIN HUTH (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union wanted to reiterate the need for States to cooperate with the Human Rights Council. Two countries were not doing so, namely Burma/Myanmar and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. To start with, in Burma/Myanmar, consistent patterns of human rights violations were taking place. Secondly, in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, routine use of torture and forced abortions were taking place, among other human rights violations. The States concerned should address their human rights situations. The European Union expressed its appreciation to States that had cooperated with the Special Procedures of the Council. An example was Burundi, where the conditions on the ground had improved. 

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Pinheiro, highlighted the continuing human rights situation in Burma, despite being denied access to the country. The people of Burma had suffered far too long, and their lives had been blighted, as they descended ever further into poverty. They did not enjoy fundamental human rights, including of association and belief. For this reason, the United Kingdom had co-sponsored the agreement adopted by the Security Council on the matter. The United Kingdom looked forward to working with all members of the Council to address this profoundly disturbing situation, and would support any form of truth and reconciliation that would allow the re-establishment of democracy in Burma, and would continue to work with the United Nations and its agencies in that regard. 

ROBERT SINCLAIR (Canada) said the role of country mandates should be maintained and could not be replaced by extraordinary sessions or the Universal Periodic Review. The Secretary General had urged Member States to keep the door open to Special Procedures. This was an opportunity for them to demonstrate transparency and a serious desire to improve human rights in their countries. Civil society had a significant role to play, and intimidating registration procedures and surveillance threatened their freedom to do so. Violence was often threatened against human rights defenders working in support of the rights of individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation. There were violations against freedom of expression and peaceful demonstration in Iran, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe, persecutions of religious minorities in Iran, mistreatment of prisoners in China, and many other issues. Improved justice was essential to ensure focus on human rights in countries such as Haiti. Cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, was a key way to demonstrate the will of nations to improve promotion and protection of human rights for everyone. 

DANIEL VOSGIEN (France) said that the interactive debates with the Special Rapporteur had shown the utility of the Special Procedures concerning situations on the ground. They guaranteed to the Council viable information to found its discussions upon. Some States still did not cooperate with the Special Procedures. They should understand that the necessity of cooperating was in the interest of all actors, including the concerned countries. France was very preoccupied by the human rights situation in Burma/Myanmar. The authorities should accept a dialogue with the United Nations on the human rights situation and should enable international humanitarian organizations to intervene without limitations to respond to the humanitarian needs of the population. France was also very preoccupied by the human rights violations taking place in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with the absence of freedom of expression and association, arbitrary detentions, practice of torture, political prisoners, extra judicial executions and organised violence against children. 

Therefore, it was urgent that Burma/Myanmar and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea received without delay the Special Rapporteurs, France believed. The refusal to cooperate was just contributing to the grave situations of human rights violations, which could not be justified and required a firm and coordinated action from the international community, in particular the Human Rights Council. France wished to pay tribute to the countries that were cooperating with the Special Procedures. It welcomed the recent political developments in Burundi moving to a pluralistic society. France was very concerned by human rights violations and violations of humanitarian law by all parties on the occupied Palestinian Territory. All parties needed to cooperate with the mechanisms of the United Nations. 

HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan) said the Human Rights Council was currently at a critical point in terms of whether or not it would be able to establish a realistic and effective organ that contributed to the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground. It was almost apparent that there would be inevitable gaps if there were only mandates without country focus. What was seen in the reports of the five Special Rapporteurs were the comprehensiveness of their observations, and the clear pictures of developments of situations in time, which were clearly the advantage of focusing on specific situations. 

There were still many people who suffered from human rights violations in the world. From this viewpoint, Japan believed that country mandates on the situation of human rights and the country-specific Rapporteur mechanism, which the international community had been advancing to date, were indispensable means for the Human Rights Council. At the same time, needless to say, the Council should avoid selectivity, politicisation, and adopting double standards in the conducting of country mandates. 

FRANK ISOH (Nigeria) said it was incumbent on all Member States to provide unfettered access to mandate holders. Nigeria did not support and did not practice any form of obstructive action. The catalogue of woes listed in Mr. Dugard’s report on the Occupied Palestinian Territories should not be tolerated in this day and age. Allegations of discrimination and apartheid-like practices against Palestinians were viewed with grave concern. The Council should act to prevent further violations in the Occupied Territories, notably to address the issue of Palestinians’ right to land and to a Palestinian state, the issue of withheld funds, and the pursuit of a two-state lasting peace solution. Punitive collective action against Palestinian people, such as sanctions, should also stop. 

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said that the Human Rights Council was established with the expectation of making a great impact. It was imperative that the Council reacted to situations as they emerged. The human rights situations in Myanmar and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should be brought to the attention of the international community. The importance of the work of county Rapporteurs could not be overstated. The strengthening of Special Procedures was vital for the continuation of the mandate of the Human Rights Council. 

SILVANO TOMASI (Holy See) said the rights of children should not only be placed high on the political agenda, but right at the centre of concern: the future of society depended on children and on how they were prepared for it, and their vulnerability called for special protection. In many cases, due to lack of will and of resources, good legal provisions and public policies were not implemented, with grave consequences for children. If respect of the human rights of children measured the health of a society, then the legal recognition of these rights was urgent. 

Governments should assume their rightful role to protect and promote family life. The creation of conditions leading to peace and economic progress would open the way to reducing and eventually eliminating those situations that hurt children in a disproportionate way. A coherent effort to eliminate violence against children would therefore reject the exaltation of violence in the public culture of society. Children were both weakness and hope, and to pursue the defence of their rights and the elimination of all forms of violence against them remained an institutional challenge for the international community.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the reports on Liberia and Burundi highlighting government efforts to tackle human rights were warmly welcomed, and those on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Myanmar, which had been generally constructive, were encouraging, and a good example of the need for country mandates, particularly where the situation was dire and Governments were unresponsive. To keep the international spotlight on these situations and hear the voices of victims of human rights, it was critical that current country mandates be maintained. 

DANIEL LACK, of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, said that the Special Rapporteur’s mandate against Israel differed totally in its inherent concept from all other country mandates, being devoted exclusively to vilifying Israel as prescribed by the discredited Commission on Human Rights in 1993. This unilateral mandate against Israel had continued unchanged under the Human Rights Council despite its reformist aspirations. The report turned human rights values upside down. The Association asked if this was the kind of report the Human Rights Council wished to adopt. 

WENCESLAO MANGOSO, of Nord-Sud XXI, said on Equatorial Guinea, the promise by the Government to build thousands of units for social housing had been ignored, as not a single building had been built. Instead, there was a constant policy of forced evictions, and the Government had built in their place thousands of houses for those high in the military. Under the pretext of improving the life of the population, the Government was evicting the vulnerable and housing the wealthy, illegally appropriating land and demolishing housing for the poor. 

MEHRAN BALUCH, of Interfaith International, said the disadvantaged people of Baluchistan and Sindh acknowledged the work of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances. Many Baluch political leaders and workers had disappeared, yet their fate had been denied by the Government. The same was true in Sindh. Inhumane and barbaric treatment was being visited on political activists kidnapped by the authorities, including torture. Interfaith International requested a fact-finding mission to Pakistan and pressure on the Pakistan Government to stop forced disappearance of Baluch and Sindh political activists. 


Right of Reply

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in right of reply, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically rejected all allegations made against it. The interactive dialogue on the report on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the draft resolution clearly proved that the resolution and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur constituted a conspiracy of the United States, Japan and the European Union based on their political purposes to eliminate the social system of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. These countries continued to manufacture fabricated and distorted information on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was deplorable that some blind followers like “South Korea” were trying to win the favour of these countries by playing their tunes. The Human Rights Council should ensure impartiality and objectivity and remove double standards and selectivity. If this continued to go unchecked, the Council’s credibility would be in jeopardy. All politicised country mandates should be removed once and for all. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea considered sovereignty and dignity as its lifeline. It would not tolerate any attempt trying to damage their sovereignty. 

FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran), speaking in right of reply, said it was ironic that the delegation of Canada spoke about the situation of human rights in other countries, considering the massive and systematic violations of human rights of indigenous peoples, aboriginals, especially women, Blacks, minorities and imprisoned women in Canada. Somebody should remind Canada of the acts of torture by police on suspects of terrorist activities. Somebody should remind the delegation that people in glass houses should not throw stones. The Human Rights Council should investigate the violation of human rights in Canada at the appropriate time. 

IGBAL ELAMIN (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply, said the Representative of the International Association of Jewish Organizations should be careful in his choice of words. It had been proven that there was no genocide in Sudan.