Source: http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/DBFE47D052763787C12572AB003AB928?OpenDocument
March 27, 2007

COUNCIL CONCLUDES DIALOGUE WITH EXPERTS ON PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM AND ON TORTURE
27 March 2007

The Human Rights Council this morning concluded the interactive dialogue on the reports by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, which were presented yesterday. 
In concluding remarks, Mr. Scheinin said that trying to analyse the conditions of the spread of terrorism did not mean to comply with it. It was always unacceptable. The issue of the causes and prevention of terrorism did not fall under the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The mandate was about the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism. A strategic approach required a broader approach and measures to have a sustainable way to support it in the long run. Even though there were no excuses for terrorism, the causes of it must be analysed and identified and the promotion of human rights was an essential element of any 
strategy.

Mr. Scheinin, in concluding remarks, said on the issue of to what extent the United Nations could assist visited countries, if the Governments were willing to implement certain recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, then he would do anything he could to assist, in particular with the aid of the United Nations Development Programme and other bilateral organizations, for example in providing training for prison officials. On whether the universal jurisdiction principle could also be applied in relation to non-State parties, the answer was yes, as it was not necessary for the perpetrators to be nationals of States parties. The Special Rapporteur had encountered many problems with regards to his visits, and this was an issue which the Council should take up, as he could not fulfil his mandate in this context. 
Many speakers appreciated the segment in Mr. Scheinin’s report on the use of ethnic, national or religious profiling in the fight against terrorism, saying that this was racist, a form of discrimination, and an inadequate way to combat terrorism. States spoke about national efforts to uphold human rights while countering terrorism. On torture, speakers also raised concerns about country visits by Mr. Nowak, and outlined national efforts to prohibit torture. 
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on countering terrorism and on torture were Cuba, Russian Federation, Cameroon, Morocco, Senegal, Switzerland, Australia, India, Germany on behalf of the European Union, Indonesia, Georgia, South Africa, Norway, Nepal, New Zealand, Finland, Iraq, the Netherlands, Mexico, Uzbekistan, Iran, Costa Rica, Denmark, Mali, Kenya, United States, Republic of Korea, Colombia, Canada, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, Algeria, Nigeria, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Bangladesh. 
The following non-governmental organizations also spoke: Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, International Educational Development, Human Rights Advocates, International Commission of Jurists, International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Defence for Children International, Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts, Association for the Prevention of Torture, International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, International Youth and Students for the United Nations, and Asian Legal Resource Centre. 
The Council is meeting today from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. non-stop. It resumed its meeting immediately after 12 p.m. to hear presentations of reports from the Special Rapporteurs on the freedom of religion or belief, on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and the Chairperson of the Working Group on arbitrary detention. 
Continuation of Interactive Dialogue on Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism and on Torture

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said with regards to the reports of both Special Rapporteurs, these were important matters, in particular the issue of interrogation manners. With regards to human rights and terrorism, the use of ethnic, national or religious profiling was discrimination and repression in the so-called fight against terrorism, as it was not only racist, but an inadequate and inefficient means to combat terrorism. The characteristics of the terrorist groups that fought Cuba on United States territory should be examined: most of these were white and had nothing to do with Islam. There were unfairly detained Cubans in the United States, and their ethnic profile was not Asian or other, it was clearly a Western profile. The Special Rapporteur was asked to visit the United States to examine the activities of the anti-Cuban terrorist groups in Miami. There were secret detention camps in Guantanamo, also in Europe, and there were CIA flights involved in this area. 

On torture, the Special Rapporteur on torture, Mr. Nowak, referred to the adoption of the Military Commission in the United States, and this should extend to the President of the United States. What did Mr. Nowak believe about the interrogation methods in this context, the speaker asked, also requiring additional material from the Special Rapporteur on follow-up from United States authorities denying a request for a visit from the Special Procedures of the Council to Guantanamo. 

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Mr. Scheinin, contained a number of important ideas. Acts of terrorism were considered violations of the right to life and should be prosecuted, but anti terrorist operations should not be indiscriminate. The report’s consideration of the process of racial profiling was interesting. But as a rule there were certain qualities that linked terrorists with political activities. Victims’ protection was not especially well covered in the report, and it was hoped this would be dealt with. Non-state actors should also bear responsibility for violations, especially where they were de facto in control of certain territory. On the visit of the Special Rapporteur on torture, Mr. Nowak, to the Russian Federation, Russian authorities did not have violations of existing legislation and checks balances. Respect for laws was an essential condition for dialogue with Mr. Nowak. 

MICHEL MAHOUVE (Cameroon) thanked the two Special Rapporteurs for their reports. Concerning the report of Mr. Nowak on torture, Cameroon affirmed that it had ratified the Convention against Torture. Cameroon refused to be a refuge for perpetrators of such crimes. Cameroon wanted to confirm that on the institutional level, the national commission on human rights had elaborated pedagogic material for education on human rights. A new penal procedure had been linked to the Ministry of Justice. It was an instrument to protect human rights. The new penal code met the standards of equality of penal procedures. The Ministry of Justice had created a monitoring body producing annual reports. 

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said these were both clear-sighted reports. One of the main objectives of the Convention against Torture was the use of legal means to implement the prohibition of torture. Morocco had harmonised its legislation with its international obligations, and this law fully took up the definition of torture as used by international law, providing legal safeguards against such crimes, and punishing it by a five to fifteen year sentence, with fines. Prison sentences could be increased if those guilty of torture had committed it on minors, pregnant women, persons with disabilities or an illness. Morocco had recognised the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and investigate individual complaints. 

There was a body in Morocco which worked to deal the majority of the cases relating to torture, and it had investigated them thoroughly, resulting in financial compensation, community reparations, and other recommendations. Moroccan officials gave utmost importance to the ratification of the Convention against Torture, and the procedure was almost underway, and thus the entire range of matters relating to torture would be dealt with. 

CHEIKH TIDIANE THIAM (Senegal) said Senegal had undertaken numerous measures to ensure human rights. Among them were adopting laws that modified the Penal Code and criminal procedure, including dispositions concerning the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and a widening of the scope of universal competence and judicial cooperation. A second series of measures concerned the implementation of the 2006 African Union mandate to Senegal to pursue and try Hissène Habré, whose case had been discussed by the Committee on Torture and the Human Rights Council before. These covered a study of the judicial, diplomatic, financial and security implications of a trial. The involved improving cooperation with certain other countries, establishing infrastructures for protection of witnesses and judges, and the need for support from the international community to provide financial assistance. These measures would ensure that legal and technical gaps were effectively closed and permit follow-up to the case. 

ANNYSSA BELLAL (Switzerland) thanked both Special Rapporteurs. Concerning the report of Mr. Scheinin, Switzerland agreed that the use of profiles to determine terrorists could contribute to promote discrimination. The question was raised how the Special Rapporteur would consider the practice of targeted killings sometimes used by States to prevent terrorist acts. In addition, Switzerland asked how one could respond to the argument that the international law of human rights was not be applicable extraterritorially and therefore, targeted killings would not be prohibited for some States conducting them outside of their territory.

Concerning the report of Mr. Nowak, the question was raised on how the use of the Convention against Torture could be further promoted and States be obliged to take all necessary steps on the legislative, judicial and executive levels in order to establish a universal competence for the convention against torture. Concerning the principle of non-refoulement which prohibited a State from transferring a person to another country where he would risk torture, it was asked if this principle also applied to a person detained by an army and by other State agents to the authorities of another State within the same border. 

ROXANE NOLAN (Australia) said Australia supported the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that impunity was one of the primary reasons torture persisted as a widespread practice around the world. Ensuring there was no impunity for the perpetrators of the most grievous crimes was not only a moral imperative, it was also essential as a deterrent to the worst sorts of international behaviour. More remained to be done at all levels, national, regional and international, to address impunity. 

At the international level, Australia played a key role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court, and continued to support its work strongly, believing that the Court’s work was central to deterring the commission of the most egregious international crimes, and made a valuable contribution towards punishing those that do. It could also act as an additional guarantor of stability, especially in fragile States. Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, and Fiji should facilitate the visit by the Special Rapporteur as soon as possible. 

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said India had been a victim of terrorism for over two decades. Terrorists stood against all principles of civilized society and there could be no justification for terrorism on any grounds. States had a responsibility to protect citizens from terrorist acts and no government could tolerate targeted killing of innocent citizens. Measures to counter terrorism should be firmly rooted in legal provisions consistent with human rights norms. These measures should focus on individual conduct rather than ethnic or religious characteristics. Anti-terrorism required broad-based international cooperation and participation of a variety of national, regional and global agencies. The United Nations Global Counter Terrorism Strategy contained numerous welcome measures to facilitate cooperation, extradition, prosecution information flow and other issues. 

ANKE KONRAD (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, first addressing Mr. Nowak and his report on torture, said concerning his planned visit to Sri Lanka, could he elaborate on the ongoing developments. With regard to the visits to Jordan, Paraguay and Nigeria, was the Special Rapporteur satisfied with the countries’ follow up to his recommendations. Concerning the meeting in Amman with Iraqi torture victims and non-governmental organizations, the Special Rapporteur was requested to elaborate on developments in this matter. With regard to the invitation to visit Zimbabwe, the European Union asked whether the Special Rapporteur had already received an invitation by the Government of Zimbabwe. 

Concerning the report on the fight against terrorism from Mr. Scheinin, the European Union asked if the Special Rapporteur could give an update on the situation with regard to outstanding visits requests and possible forthcoming country visits or studies similar to the one done in cooperation with the Government of Australia and civil society. In addition, the European Union wanted to know whether the Special Rapporteur could give an update concerning cooperation with other United Nations bodies and regional organizations in fulfilling his mandate. 

ADE PETRANTO (Indonesia) said the reports were exhaustive and enlightening. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on terrorism, the conclusions and recommendations were interesting, as Indonesia attached the greatest importance to respecting human rights and the rule of law in the context of counter-terrorism. The report’s findings established the incompatibility with human rights of practices based on race-based terrorist profiling, as well as the fact that this same profiling, when it was based on ethnicity, national origin or religion, generally failed to meet human rights standards as well as the requirements of proportionality. This conclusion was a positive step, and confirmed the views of countries which had long cautioned against the use of such practices as a breach of basic human rights. 

On the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture, furthering cooperation through interactive and inclusive dialogue with several stakeholders in various parts of the world was a positive development, and one that should be actively encouraged within the framework of the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms. Indonesia was firmly convinced that it was crucial to seek the cooperation of a country under review, as this would afford the inclusive participation of all the relevant stakeholders, and promote transparency and confidence in the processes of this very important mechanism of the Council, thereby creating conducive conditions for the implementation of countries’ commitments under the Convention against Torture. 

TAMAR TOMASHVILI (Georgia) said there had been numerous developments in Georgia in the fight against impunity of acts of torture and degrading treatment, with improved public access to information on prosecuted persons. Legal safeguards had been strengthened, with police and prosecutors’ codes of ethics established, and a guidance manual on the use of force by the police had been drafted. Prison conditions had improved, especially regarding overcrowding; use of torture or excessive force or abuse of power was being addressed among law enforcement authorities. Transparency was being established in monitoring of law enforcement agencies. Georgia was a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and would implement its provisions in due course, and the Government was looking at appropriate models from other countries for monitoring mechanisms. 

PITSO MONTWEDI (South Africa) welcomed the in-depth reports of both Special Rapporteurs. South Africa strongly believed that certain basic human rights should be observed while countering terrorism. It was concerned that certain racial and religious groups had been targeted and their human rights violated under the guise of the war on terror. The negative racial and religious profiling which came with such acts was dehumanising and in direct contrast to the noble principle of human dignity and human equity. South Africa agreed with the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur in this regard. 

The Government of South Africa had decided to extend an open invitation to all the thematic procedures of this Council to visit South Africa in furtherance of their mandates. South Africa was pleased to inform that it would receive the Special Rapporteur Mr. Scheinin for a country visit in April 2007. The country was looking forward to a very open and constructive dialogue and engagement with the Special Rapporteur during this period. South Africa would benefit from the vast experience of Mr. Scheinin as well as on best practices gleaned from other countries with which he had associations previously. 

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said there was a very impressive level of activity undertaken by both mandate holders. The remarks on ethnic profiling were interesting, and while these could be both necessary and permissible, they could lead to de facto discrimination, and the analysis showed this. Was there scope for enhancing the cooperation between mandate holders in order to enhance the Special Procedures, Norway asked. With regards to impunity for crimes of torture, reference was made to the obligation contained to establish universal jurisdiction for torture, as contained in the Convention against Torture, and in light of the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation to make use of States’ obligations in this regard, could he comment on the application of the fifth paragraph of the Convention. 

BHARAT RAJ PAUDYAL (Nepal) said Mr. Nowak’s report mentioned Nepal. The Government had cooperated seriously with the Special Rapporteur and accepted the recommendations of his earlier visit to Nepal. The Government was fully committed to end torture and maintain the human rights of all citizens. Some references that had been made in the report were generalizations drawn from isolated cases, or based on inaccurate information. References must be properly checked beforehand. Nepal took all allegations of torture seriously and had taken actions against a number of individuals in the army and police. There had been compensation of victims in certain cases. Under the terms of the peace process last year, arbitrary detention, torture and ill treatment were to be ended, and unhindered access to detained persons would be assured. 

NICOLA HILL (New Zealand) thanked both Special Rapporteurs for their work. Concerning the report on torture, New Zealand affirmed its support for the Convention against Torture. New Zealand was very pleased that it had become the thirty-third State party to the Optional Protocol. It wanted to know how the mandate of the Special Rapporteur could be incorporated with the work of the sub-committee. 

ANNA ESKO (Finland) said, in the context of profiling or similar measures, the need to ensure judicial scrutiny and access to justice for those suspected of terrorist acts and relations with terrorist organizations were crucial to ensure the protection of human rights. 

YOUSSEF MOHAMMAD AZIZ (Iraq) said terrorism, which was a new phenomenon and had led to many miseries in the world, was a scourge in Iraq, where the Iraqi people had become real victims, standing in the way of a ferocious wave of terrorism. Remedies should be found for this terrorism. The terrorists were coming up with new forms of terrorism, including suicide bombs, and the international community needed to stop this. Terrorism was not at the same degree all over Iraq - there were some disparities. 

In Kurdistan, the situation was very different, and security was tight as a result of the sovereignty and rule of law, and as human rights were implemented there. Kurdistani institutions were constantly being improved in order to ensure peace and security. In light of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, a law on counter-terrorism had been implemented. A law dealing with all aspects of terrorism had been implemented. There was optimism in some parts of Iraq, and the example of Kurdistan should be taken, while taking into account the dangers existing in all parts of Iraq. 

SUZANNE DE GROOT (Netherlands) thanked both Special Rapporteurs for their work. The Netherlands associated itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. The Netherlands appreciated the report on cooperation with regional organizations on human rights issues and the positive examples presented. Could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on which were the most important substantial and specific activities in the cooperation between regional organizations and the mandate on torture. States remained extremely reluctant to make use of their rights and obligations under the Convention to exercise universal jurisdiction. The Netherlands asked what reasons were behind this reluctance and what remedies the Special Rapporteur would see to promote the exercise of universal jurisdiction over torture offences. 

JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) said that it was a matter of concern that terrorist profiling was being used. The practice of racial or racist profiling was serious and Mexico asked if Mr. Nowak could provide advice on how to replace the practice in order to comply with human rights standards and the presumption of innocence. Mr. Nowak’s report had also said law enforcement agencies should respect human rights standards and demonstrate transparency. Could he also comment on examples of transparency that showed good practice? Mexico was committed to national mechanisms in pursuit of the Optional Protocol on torture and, regarding universal jurisdiction, how could the Human Rights Council contribute to accelerating provisions against torture and other crimes of universal jurisdiction?

AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said Uzbekistan was the first country of the Commonwealth of Independent States to invite a Special Rapporteur on Torture, and it had implemented a National Plan of Action against Torture, including all recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, showing its determination to eliminate torture. The Criminal Code had been brought into coordination with the Convention against Torture. Reports of torture or other illegal anomalies were dealt with by the law-enforcement agencies, and the strictest reaction took place, including judicial condemnation and fines. 

In accordance with the decision of the Court, evidence obtained by torture or other illegal means was inadmissible and not accepted as evidence. The penal system in Uzbekistan was open to visits by international officials and representatives of the international press, and many visits had taken place. Uzbekistan fully cooperated with the United Nations Special Procedures. On the basis of what criteria did the Special Rapporteur determine the nature of torture, and on what international documents, the speaker asked? 

FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran) said Iran had been a victim of terrorism for three decades. There were serious concerns about the profiling of suspects on racial or religious grounds in the so-called war against terrorism. Mr. Scheinin had mentioned widespread, ethnically disproportionate stop-and search powers in the United Kingdom, and his lack of response from the United Kingdom’s Government on the Terrorism Act 2006, which he had been concerned about. Iran asked whether Mr. Scheinin would raise this issue again with the Government of the United Kingdom, and whether he intended to visit that country. Iran also said the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on terrorism should be improved regarding the use of terrorist safe havens by certain groups, and was concerned that the issue should be addressed with relevant countries, especially France. Iran was concerned also by the alleged use of European Union Member States for CIA transport and illegal detention of prisoners, and asked the Special Rapporteur to report to the Council on the current situation. 

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica) said the number of cases of torture and the letters written by the Special Rapporteur to governments with questions on the use of torture were high, and he had provided the statistics in the report showing the trends in 2006-2007. All Governments, including democratic ones, should understand that torture was against the minimum standards of human rights. The practice should be eradicated sooner rather than later, and Costa Rica had been proactively working to make its voice heard in the matter, along with those of non-governmental organizations. The need for cooperation in the UN system was important. Costa Rica had pioneered measures against torture in the region, and asked whether the Special Rapporteur could inform the Human Rights Council of areas of complementarity that had been identified in conversations on working methods of the Sub-Committee on the prevention of torture. 

MARIE LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) said the Special Rapporteur on torture made interesting suggestions on holding States economically responsible for systematic or widespread torture, and that perpetrators were held economically responsible for the costs of rehabilitation. Could he elaborate on the relationship between the personal criminal and economic responsibility of the perpetrator, the responsibility of the State for violating human rights and the duty of the State to ensure rehabilitation of torture victims, the speaker asked? Further, did he have any specific proposals for remedying the problem of the lack of political will to allow unannounced visits or to hold private interviews with detainees? 

FATOUMATA DIALL (Mali) thanked Mr. Nowak for his consistent report on torture. Mali encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue furthermore to privilege the fulfilment of his mandate. Mali had taken steps to ensure the implementation of legal steps to fight against torture, such as a national committee to safeguard human rights for all and to prevent torture. It regularly conducted throughout the country visits to prisons. Mali remained convinced that in the fight against torture, the emphasize must be on prevention. Therefore, the country put a lot of hopes in the efficacy of the new sub-committee for the prevention of torture. 

MARIA NZOMO (Kenya) said the Government was conscious of its accountability to the people and obligations to ensure counter terrorism measures did not derogate from obligations under international law. Kenya had engaged at all levels in the debate on the balance between promotion and protection of human rights and counter terrorism and for this reason had not adopted the draft terrorism bill mentioned in Mr. Nowak’s report. Kenya was a multi ethnic society and did not practice any form of racial or religious profiling. In Kenya measures in governance, justice and law and order had been introduced, including a police oversight body, a national Commission on Human Rights, training for police and prison officers in prevention and prohibition of acts that may constitute torture, reforms within the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and numerous other measures all of which had a positive impact on preventing torture and other cruel and degrading treatment in prisons and detention facilities. 

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said it was important for countries to implement their obligations under article V of the Convention against Torture, and establish jurisdiction over acts of torture where the alleged offender was present in their territory. Implementing the obligation could help prevent impunity for this grave offence. Mr. Nowak reported that at a recent meeting in Banjul, the Zimbabwean delegation indicated that an invitation would be forthcoming, and he should provide an update on his efforts to visit that country. 

With regards to the report on terrorism, the work of the Special Rapporteur on how countries could protect against terrorism while preserving the cherished commitment to human rights and the rule of law was welcomed. In discussing “shoot to kill” policies, Mr. Scheinin mentioned the United States PATRIOT Act. However, this Act had no provision on this topic, and the Constitution imposed clear and definitive limitations on when law-enforcement officials could use deadly force, and this had not changed. 

PIL-WOO KIM (Republic of Korea) said the Republic of Korea appreciated the devotion and courage that Mr. Nowak had shown in carrying out his mandate. The Republic of Korea found it interesting that among other recommendations in the report, there was a mechanism that might require States in which torture was systematic to contribute some funds to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. As it was generally difficult to expect genuine cooperation from States in which torture was systematic or widespread, the Republic of Korea asked whether it was realistic to expect to force those States to contribute and what other international consideration would be needed in this regard. 

The Republic of Korea also welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. It appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s steadfast adherence to the human rights principles in analysing issues like terrorist profiling and suicide attacks. The Republic of Korea fully recognized the legitimate aim of countering terrorist attacks. However, it also wanted to note that the terrorist profiling practice based on stereotypical generalization was not only ineffective but also counterproductive. Optimal-inclusive profiling based on accurate intelligence would be ideal, however hardly attainable. 

TOMAS CONCHA (Colombia) said Colombia had legislation to prevent torture and constitutional and penal codes defined torture as a crime. Compliance had been set forth in legal instruments and Colombia had been conducting a study on the training of international humanitarian law for military personnel, and had strengthened training in human rights matters generally to improve their relations with civil society. There had been a drop in complaints against the military and there had been progress also in protecting private individuals, with numerous measures including a programme of councils to bring matters to the attention of appropriate state personnel. 

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said as the Special Rapporteur on Torture indicated in his report, the Convention generated an obligation primarily for the State that had acted wrongly. It was proposed that consideration be given to devising mechanisms to hold accountable those States in which torture was systematic and widespread. The report suggested, for example, such States might be required to contribute adequate funds to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture, and this was a suggestion worth considering. In addition, the report suggested that the costs of long-term rehabilitation for torture victims should ideally be borne by the individual perpetrators, their superiors, and the authorities directly responsible. What obstacles had the Special Rapporteur identified to civil suits against such individuals in their countries, and how would he generally assess States’ compliance with previous recommendations, the speaker asked? 

RIGOBERTO GAUTO (Paraguay) said that in the context of the invitation Paraguay had extended in 2004, Mr. Nowak had visited Paraguay in November 2006. Paraguay wanted to thank him for his visit and the cooperation and interest he attributed to Paraguay. Mr. Nowak had participated in a workshop on torture in order to find ways to eradicate this phenomenon. The Special Rapporteur was ensured that he could visit all place of detention he wanted and conduct interviews with officials and non-governmental organizations. Paraguay was convinced that the Special Rapporteur was satisfied with the visit. Unfortunately, the report could not be accessed so far in Spanish. The institutions in Paraguay could not analyse the report so far. Paraguay was a democracy where the Government was elected in transparency. Efforts were made to maintain a good relationship with non-governmental organizations in the country. Paraguay had ratified the Convention against Torture and the Optional Protocol. The recommendations of the Special Rapporteur provided a varied contribution to the Government’s efforts, which was open to consider them. The Council could be ensured that Paraguay would continue to observe human rights. 

MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil) said any Government had a right and duty to protect nationals and others against terrorist acts but the manner in which counter terrorism efforts were conducted had a far-reaching effect on human rights. Human rights law should provide a framework to counter terrorism without infringing on fundamental freedoms. Mr. Scheinin had made commendable progress in advancing the discussion of so-called terrorist profiling. Stereotypes of race, religion and ethnicity were the roots of anti-terrorism measures that most jeopardized the basic principles of non-discrimination. It was essential to question the proportionality between, on the one hand, effective measures to prevent terrorism and on the other, respect for human rights. Concerning torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Brazil had set up a comprehensive Plan of Action and a National Committee on the Prevention of Torture. There was close cooperation with non-governmental organizations including a partnership with the Association for the Prevention of Torture, and capacity building and training in the police and prison administration sectors. 

EDUARDO CHIHUALIAF (Chile) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture, referring to follow-up to recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur, note had been taken of the reference to Chile. The Government of Chile would continue to cooperate and work closely with the Special Rapporteur. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on terrorism was especially crucial at this time when the international community should effectively handle the threat that terrorism posed, without denying the values and principles of human rights. 

It was also especially important for the report to examine the issue of racial profiling, and the conclusions and recommendations in the report in this matter were shared. States were required to take on new procedures to deal with this issue, but these should be in line with human rights. However, the fight had taken on a vicious and counter-productive cycle. Each time constitutional guarantees were restricted and illicit measures used to fight terrorism, then the perpetrators won, as it was only in this way that the spirit of democracy was threatened. 

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria shared the opinion of the Special Rapporteur that the practice of terrorist profiling on the basis of religion, ethnicity and other indicators was a discriminating practice. It opened the way to misinterpretation and could justify the deplorable practices of terrorism. Algeria considered that what was said by the Special Rapporteur undermined the principles of non-discrimination. Algeria confirmed the reasons mentioned in the report that led to the spread of the phenomenon of terrorism. Among them were unsolved conflicts and conflicts based on nationality and religion. There was a necessity to deal with these issues to cut the roots for terrorism. Algeria believed that an international effort was necessary to eliminate terrorism. It hoped that the international community should reach an agreement on the definition on terrorism to be able to adopt a convention against it. Algeria believed that in the long run, upholding human rights remained the best way of combating those who denied them. 

FRANK ISOH (Nigeria) said Mr. Nowak had visited many regions of Nigeria during his recent short visit, and been openly received and welcomed by the Government. Nigeria had a good record of cooperation with the United Nations human rights systems generally. But there were some aspects of Mr. Nowak’s visit that were cause for concern, notably his approach to speaking with the press. The impression that torture was being carried out with impunity in Nigeria was untrue. The Government was committed to re-orienting attitudes in law enforcement agencies, and there was a long-standing commitment and programme of training to inculcate the ideals of human rights in the police. There was also an NGO-partner scheme to improve the filing of complaints at police stations across the country. Police lawyers were used to investigate alleged violations of human rights of detainees, and there had been reprimands and prosecutions. Allegations of torture against the police were speedily investigated, and those found guilty punished. Nigeria welcomed Mr. Nowak’s appreciation of the challenges in the country: sheer size and diversity of the population, plurality of legal systems, and ethno-linguistic and religious differences. These were real challenges and the Government was prepared to make progress in spite of them, and to work assiduously to create an environment for citizens to enjoy all human rights as defined under the Constitution.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the analysis of the Special Rapporteur on terrorism of profiling in the context of countering terrorism was both commendable and thought-provoking. Terrorist profiling based on stereotypical assumptions regarding persons of certain races, nationalities, ethnicities and religion were incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination. Empirical evidence quoted in the report suggested that such profiling was not only an ineffective and unsuitable means of countering terrorism, but also affected thousands of innocent people without concrete results. 

The OIC shared the concerns raised by the Special Rapporteur regarding the adverse effects of such profiling, which could take a profound emotional toll on the victims. The OIC supported the recommendation to eliminate any profiling which was inconsistent with the dignity of human beings and constituted a threat to the equal enjoyment of all human rights by all citizens. All citizens deserved to live in an environment based on justice and respect for legal obligations and international law. 

NAYEM AHMED (Bangladesh) extended sincere thanks to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Scheinin, for his excellent report. The report depicted an analysis of profiling in the context of counter terrorism. Profiling in the context of counter terrorism was indeed a set of systematic association of physical, behavioural and psychological characteristics. In case of counter terrorism the trust between the law enforcement agencies and community should be a paramount. This trust and cooperation helped to assemble adequate information. 

Bangladesh felt that this report was an initialisation spotlight to the problem. The Special Rapporteur had indicated that universal or random checks may alternate profiling, but this proposition lacked a practical roadmap for universal agreement. Profiling in the context of counter terrorism should be fully compatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Bangladesh was committed to uproot terrorism and abhorred it in all forms and manifestations. 

SARAH KAISER, of Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, said racial profiling did not work. It was a serious breach of human rights norms, and Jewish people were disturbed by any move to stereotype based on religion or ethnicity. It alienated and radicalized minority communities. Instead bridges should be built with minority communities to identify terrorist groups. The Consultative Council asked whether the Special Rapporteur expected to find terrorist profiling practices that interfered with human rights and yet complied with the principle of proportionality, and if so what impact would they have on the welfare of groups affected. 

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said the Geneva Conventions defined torture as a grave breach, and also required universal jurisdiction for such offences. In this light, it was regretted that the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Sri Lanka was postponed. It was regretted that the Sri Lankan authorities now denied the Working Group on enforced disappearance permission to assess the Tamil crisis on-site. Mr. Nowak should undertake a joint mission with the Working Group, with Mr. Kalin, and perhaps also the Special Rapporteur on racism, as the continual anti-Tamil rhetoric by Government authorities contributed heavily to the genocidal situation. 

ELISABETH HANOWSKY, of Human Rights Advocates, in a joint statement with National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said in a joint statement that world wide efforts had reduced the use of capital punishment, so that ninety-four percent of executions continued to be conducted in only four countries – the United States, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The organizations encouraged that abolition remain a priority of the United States. They were concerned that violations of the prohibition against torture were taking place in the implementation of the death penalty as a result of long sentences awaiting death. The organization asked how the violation would be addressed without the availability of strong Special Procedures and how limitations to the implementation of capital punishment could continue to be recognized and enforced by the Council. 

GERALD STABEROCK, of International Commission of Jurists, said there were continued reports of erosion of human rights and the most fundamental rules of law. Violations, often involving the intelligence services, were shrouded in secrecy, ensuring impunity. The International Commission of Jurists welcomed the invitation for the Special Rapporteur to visit the United States and urged full cooperation. The acknowledgement of secret detention and evidence on extraordinary rendition, involving deprivation of liberty and tantamount to enforced disappearance as a result of planned government policy, was a serious concern and required the Council’s urgent attention. The Council should send a clear message to the United States on the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention centre. 

HANAN SHARFELDDIN, of International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, in a joint statement with Arab Lawyers Union; Union of Arab Jurists, said terrorism was in the minds of many, manifested by acts of violence, but this was not the only case: foreign occupation was a major and illegal act of terrorism. And it became total terrorism when it created suffocating situations that made all the rights of the people under occupation at the whim of the occupier, with the intention of killing all means of resisting occupation and regaining freedom. Resistance to foreign occupation was a natural and legal right, recognised throughout history. The right of self-defence was not terrorism. There should therefore be no confusion between resistance and terrorism. 

JULIA D'ALOISIO, Defence for Children International, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture. The organization regretted however that the report did not specifically address the torture and abuse of children who were deprived of their liberty. Children in conflict with the law were subjected to many of the same forms of torture as adults, including beatings, sexual abuse, and food deprivation, among others. The Special Rapporteur was asked what steps the Special Rapporteur would take to address the torture of children in custody and what recommendations he would make to States to more effectively investigate and prosecute cases of torture and other human rights violations against children. 

JOSE S.S.M. ADRIAANSEN-SMIT, of the Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts, said there were 90,000 registered claims from survivors of Japanese occupation in the Dutch East Indies in World War Two – including victims of sex slavery, internment and deportation of prisoners of war and victims of labour camps; some were also sent to work in mines or harbours. To this day the Japanese Government had not offered compensation or open excuse for their crimes, including planned and organized rape of women. An earlier UN Special Rapporteur had requested appropriate action on the matter from the Japanese Government. Japan appeared to be not just ignoring the facts but denying them. The Japanese Government should compensate and apologize to the victims. 

EDOUARD DELAPLACE, of Association for the Prevention of Torture, in a joint statement with International Federation of ACAT (Action By Christians for the Abolition of Torture); International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims; and World Organization against Torture, said the report of the Special Rapporteur was welcomed, and the Special Rapporteur had done excellent work, and his commitment to the work was valued. In the recent report, a part was dedicated to the issue of universal jurisdiction, and this study was very interesting, and States parties should make use of their rights and obligations under the Convention to exercise universal jurisdiction. One of the major aims of the Convention against Torture was the criminalisation of torture, and to this end the Convention obliged States parties to designate crime as a specific crime - however, it appeared this obligation was rarely implemented. The Special Rapporteur should consider making this issue a part of his next report. 

ATIA ANWAR ZOON, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said that the report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Nowak, concerned one of the most crucial and important subjects which directly reflected upon the basic rights and dignity of a human being. The organization therefore strongly supported the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations and encouraged all States to sign and ratify the International Convention on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading treatment. The Federation also wanted to draw the attention to the unremitting and unabated use of excessive force against innocent civilians in occupied territories, quoting Indian-held Kashmir as an example. 

MOHAMED CHEIKH MOHAMED, of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, in a joint statement with International Educational Development, said an earlier mission to the Western Sahara had determined that the right to self determination of the Western Sahara people should be assured and established without delay as human rights violations were sustained by non application of the basic right. Hundreds had been detained by Morocco for over 30 years, while others were victims of arbitrary arrest, torture, assassination and landmines. Thousands of refugees were victims of food aid sanctions. The Human Rights Council should mandate a Special Rapporteur to visit the Western Sahara and report on human rights violations there. 

NORMAN VOSS, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said torture in Asia was widespread and frequently systematic in a way that differed in many aspects from the experience of this practice in other regions. Hundreds of cases were documented every year, and there was grave concern for the prevalence of this practice and the impunity for perpetrators accompanying it. In many States in Asia, including among Member States of the Council, torture was the prime method of investigation used by law enforcement agencies. The concept of justice was sacrificed on the altars of brutality and corrupt convenience. The Special Rapporteur should explain how the Human Rights Council could assist his mandate in order for it to be able to address such a widespread and deeply ingrained problem in the Asian region. 


Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteurs on Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism and on Torture

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said that he noted with gratitude the comments from India, South Africa and Iraq, whose statements he would not comment on furthermore. Concerning the statement from Turkey, the cooperation was very good and the Special Rapporteur appreciated the fact that this cooperation would continue furthermore. But he had concerns regarding the compensation act. There were elements of best practice in the Turkish compensation law but the pattern was mixed and he was concerned about the uneven application of this law. He agreed with the delegate of Turkey that the act of analysing the causes for terrorism was a matter of interdisciplinary approach to be able to define the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. The Special Rapporteur emphasized that trying to analyse the conditions of the spread of terrorism did not mean to comply with it. It was always unacceptable. The issue of the causes and prevention of terrorism did not fall under the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The mandate was about the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism. 

A strategic approach required a broader approach and measures to have a sustainable way to support it in the long run, Mr. Scheinin said. Even though there were no excuses for terrorism, the causes of it must be analysed and identified. Promotion of human rights was an essential element of any strategy. It was particularly part of his mandate to take also a look at those sides. Concerning non-state actors committing terrorist acts, he referred to a previous report where a methodology had been elaborated. The delegate from Cuba asked questions about the Special Rapporteur’s forthcoming visit to the United States. The visit would take place in May 2007. The places to visit were still under discussion. The Special Rapporteur took with interest the suggestions made by Cuba. Concerning the questions from Switzerland on targeted killings, the existing standards were sufficient to deal with the most difficult situations, he said. There was no reason to shoot policies. Human rights law must acknowledge the international law in the area of arbitrary deprivation of life. Concerning targeted assassinations, the situation must amount to an armed conflict and the person targeted must be actively participating in the hostilities. In this case, the use of force was under humanitarian law permissible. It was a very limited set of circumstances and both factors must occur simultaneously. 

With regard to the extraterritorial effect, humanitarian law was by definition applicable extraterritorially, the Special Rapporteur said. Some human rights treaties referred to certain territories or special state jurisdiction and should be looked up carefully. Customary human rights law would always continue to apply. Concerning the questions raised by Germany, there had been new developments concerning the Philippines, Spain, the United States and Israel and the list of countries was correct so far. Since December 2006, there had not been many new activities, except the visit of the Special Rapporteur to Brussels some weeks ago. With regard to the question of Norway, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was comprehensive and complementary, hence the degree of cooperation was higher that in other areas. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate was particularly interrelated with other mandates. Concerning the question of Mexico about best practices, customs authorities had improved their methods. Intelligence often escaped oversight. 

MANFRED NOWAK, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in concluding remarks to the debate, said he was grateful for the many encouraging statements he had received from both Governments and non-governmental organizations. In particular, the commitment of Jordan to cooperate was appreciated, and further meetings had been held since to discuss issues, and the Special Rapporteur welcomed the closing and planned closing of detention facilities. With regards to the statement of Cuba, a reference had been made to the situation in Guantanamo and follow-up in that regard; the report had determined there was arbitrary detention that was not in compliance with international standards. The Special Rapporteur had not been allowed to visit Guantanamo. He had indicated to the United States Government that he would be in the country, and was available for all consultations, and was confident that some of the promises by President Bush to close down Guantanamo would be true. 

The statement by the Russian Federation to the effect that it intended to pursue dialogue was welcomed. His terms of reference were un-negotiable, and it was up to the Russian Federation to make their laws in conformity with that, and he was confident this could be done. The implementation by many States of the Convention against Torture was welcomed, in particular with regards to Morocco and Senegal. On questions by Switzerland, States should incorporate the obligations into domestic laws, and incorporate this into training of law-enforcement officials. On the principle of non-refoulement, this only applied in relation to sending a person from one State to another. On future visits, the Special Rapporteur would visit Sri Lanka in October, as well as Indonesia in November. The Special Rapporteur had sent urgent appeals to the Government of Zimbabwe, and had received two forms of informal invitations. He hoped these would be followed by formal invitations. 

On to what extent the United Nations could assist visited countries, if the Governments were willing to implement certain recommendations of the Special Rapporteur’s, then he would do anything he could to assist, in particular with the aid of the United Nations Development Programme and other bilateral organizations, for example in providing training for prison officials. On whether the universal jurisdiction principle could also be applied in relation to non-State parties, the answer was yes, as it was not necessary for the perpetrators to be nationals of States parties. The cooperation of the Government of Nepal was appreciated, as it had improved the situation. The Special Rapporteur tried to carry out joint missions with other Special Procedures. On what was systematic torture and who defined this, the definition could be found in the Convention against Torture among other documents. The Special Rapporteur had encountered many problems with regards to his visits, and this was an issue which the Council should take up, as he could not fulfil his mandate in this context.