Source: – HYPERLINK http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/6C10A78760565C10C125729E004B4523?OpenDocument http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/6C10A78760565C10C125729E004B4523?OpenDocument
Date: March 14, 2007

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT
Adopts Timetable and Agenda of Fourth Session and Decides on Dates of Fifth Session
14 March 2007
The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its high-level segment after hearing speeches from 15 dignitaries who addressed a broad range of issues. Many speakers evoked the importance of setting up the Universal Periodic Review and reviewing the Special Procedures as they would be the core instruments of the Human Rights Council to pursue the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. A collective will and commitment to the Council were also considered as important prerequisites for all Member States in order to make the Council’s work efficient and successful in the future. 

Francisco Santos Calderón, Vice President of Colombia, said the Human Rights Council had two main challenges: the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review and the Special Procedures system. The Council should be an opportunity for dialogue and cooperation, in order to guarantee the exercise of human rights. 

Joël N’Guessan, Minister for Human Rights of Côte d’Ivoire, said that Côte d’Ivoire supported the revision of mandates and the system of mandate holders of the Council. The right to development was inalienable, and Côte d’Ivoire wished to see a formal Convention on the Right to Development. Greater cooperation among countries of the South over human rights and the right to development would also be beneficial. 

Wajdan Salem, Minister for Human Rights of Iraq, said that various kinds of violations, in particular violations of the right of life, were taking place in Iraq. The Government was working hard to promote the security situation for the people. The national reconciliation initiative was aiming to establish a new partnership with the international community to consolidate the peace process and pursue the development in all social, economic and political aspects. 

Conor Lenihan, Minister of State for Development Cooperation and Human Rights of Ireland, said that despite undoubted positives, the Council had regrettably not yet fulfilled all of the expectations. It should seize the opportunity to bolster its own credibility and that of the broad United Nations. While no part of the world was totally free from human rights abuses, the risk of human rights being violated was greater where political, economic and administrative systems were weak. 

Martha Karua, Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs of Kenya, said that Kenya had devoted enormous resources to socio-economic rights and poverty alleviation as part of its national economic recovery strategy. It was committed to the institution-building process within the Human Rights Council, in particular the Universal Periodic Review, and viewed it as a major tool in strengthening the existing human rights mechanisms. 

Per Stig Møller, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said dialogue and consensus must be at the core of the Human Rights Council. Even if a consensus could not be reached, the Council must be ready to act in the interest of the victims of human rights violations. Independent and effective monitoring was the essence in constructing and working with the instruments of the Human Rights Council, where all States needed to cooperate fully and in good faith. 

Akmal Saidov Director of the National Centre for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said that the international community should treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. Politically motivated and biased approaches to situations of human rights could undermine the principles of objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues and were counterproductive to the cause of promotion of human rights. 

Khadiga Al-Haisami, Minister for Human Rights of Yemen, said Yemen had created many new laws in order to keep pace with rapid changes in political, social and cultural activity, notably increased press and public freedoms, a stronger civil society, a diversity of political activity and improved public participation in the political process. Human rights promotion and capacity-building programmes were implemented across society. 

Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, Vice Minister of the Ministry for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights both in its territory and worldwide. Mexico acknowledged an undeniable political and legal value to the recommendations of the Human Rights Council. 

Jaroslav Neveroviè, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, said no one could be denied human rights. The people of the world were watching the Council’s activities with many hopes. It was the obligation of the Member States to create conditions that would allow the Council to make the impact on the ground for improvement of particular situations. 

Abdulla Shahid, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Maldives, said a political transformation was being engineered in the Maldives, aimed at creating a model of democracy founded on the principle of human rights promotion and protection. The Maldives were committed to its Reform Roadmap, which included police and penal bills, and reform measures covering criminal procedure, detention and other human rights related areas. 

Cho Jung-pyo, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that the Council should be going beyond mere dialogue and cooperation. The Government shared the concerns of the international community on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and would continue to make efforts to bring about substantial improvements of conditions of life in the country. 

Diana Štrofová, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said that it was up to the Council to prove it could become a fair, credible and effective organ in the field of the protection and promotion of human rights all around the world. The Council should be able to respond promptly and effectively to all kinds of human rights violations as they occurred, and should look into proper ways of how to address them. 

Ricardo Lara Watson, Vice Minister of Governance and Justice of Honduras, said human rights protection through improved justice and security were among the priorities of Honduras. This included strengthened police and prison systems, crime reduction and a fair and independent legal system.

Don McKinnon, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, said that the Commonwealth as a human rights organization included in its principles the promotion and protection of democracy, fundamental human rights and equality of all citizens. The organization ensured that human rights considerations were brought into all Commonwealth policy work, and into its practical programs in areas such as health, education, gender equality and counter-terrorism measures. 

Speaking in right of reply were France, Germany, Armenia, United States, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Republic of Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Cyprus. 

Also during the meeting, the Council adopted its agenda and timetable for the fourth session and agreed to hold its fifth session from 11 to 18 June. 

The Council is scheduled to reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon at which time it will hear Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, present her report. An interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner would follow.

Statements

FRANCISCO SANTOS CALDERON, Vice President of Colombia, said the establishment of the Human Rights Council had been a major step forward, showing the determination of the United Nations to take up the challenges of the next century. The Council had two main challenges: the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review and the Special Procedures system. The Council now had to find solutions to the multilateral exercise to undertake reforms. It was not advisable to prolong the reform system, as that risked stalemate. The key to the new architecture of the system was the Universal Periodic Review. Selectivity and politicisation were what led the former Commission to lose so much prestige: only a mechanism with a universal scope which could deal constructively with the goals, achievements and difficulties would dispel the lack of trust which had prevailed in the closing years of the Commission. It should be an opportunity for dialogue and cooperation, in order to guarantee the exercise of human rights. 

Any intention of turning the new instrument into a quasi-jurisdictional body should be quashed. If some were not convinced of the formula adopted for the Universal Periodic Review, then it should be evolving in nature, able to be reformed when the Council was reviewed in five years. It should be able to take speedy decisions. With regards to the Special Procedures, there had been excesses in the past when terms of reference were exceeded, such as in the case of certain Special Rapporteurs, and the case of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries. There was a need for special accounting for the Special Procedures, and the Council should be able to analyse the code of conduct in order to determine incompatibilities and exceeding of the mandate. 

JOËL N’GUESSAN, Minister for Human Rights of Côte d’Ivoire, thanked non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies for their involvement in and support of Côte d’Ivoire at a time of grave political crisis. Following recent dysfunctions in the field of human rights, dysfunctions that had been the cause of the recent crisis, President Gbagbo had created a special Ministry for Human Rights in Côte d’Ivoire to ensure harmonization, promotion, education, training, protection and assistance for vulnerable populations. Numerous practical actions on the ground, particularly in the educational system, had also been set in place in the country. But poverty remained the greatest problem, and increasing impoverishment created a fertile environment for conflict and human rights violations. 

Mr. N’Guessan said Côte d’Ivoire supported the revision of mandates and the system of mandate holders. The right to development was inalienable, and Côte d’Ivoire wished to see a formal Convention on the Right to Development. This would reinforce awareness in the richer countries that poverty was not in the world’s interest. Greater cooperation among countries of the South over human rights and rights to development would also be beneficial. Recent accords signed in Côte d’Ivoire provided hope for a future without conflict in West Africa. The accords should serve as a model for conflict resolution and the consolidation of democracy and national unity. Côte d’Ivoire deserved the full support of the international community. 

WIJDAN SALEM, Minister of Human Rights of Iraq, said since the former regime was toppled, Iraq had been witnessing a very sensitive situation, with heavy terrorist attacks, and it had become a battlefield for different sides because of its open borders which encouraged the criminals to come and kill the innocent people of Iraq. Various kinds of violations, in particular violations of the right of life, were taking place. The country was facing terror, which was considered as the greatest global risk threatening peace and stability in the world, in addition to economic, social and cultural violations because of the administrative and financial corruption and the domination of the violence in the Iraqi society. The Government was working hard to promote the security situation for the people. Iraq was trying to establish a high institutional system to ensure the protection of human rights, the dealing with the heavy burden left by the former regime and the dissemination of human rights education. For this purpose, a new Ministry had been established to deal with human rights issues. The Ministry was working to monitor human rights violations and disseminating human rights education through special groups concerned with detentions and prisons, mass graves, involuntary disappearances, women’s rights and cooperation with non-governmental organizations among others. 

Iraq had a new constitutional framework, the Minister said. The Government was working to make Iraq a state party through endorsing international covenants like the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Ministry of Human Rights followed up on violations of human rights against the Iraqi people. It was working on achieving several projects like the establishment of a missing persons centre and dealing with disappearances and mass graves victims. Iraq was working hard on preparing for the abolition of the death penalty. The Prime Minister had launched a strong initiative for national reconciliation in order to reject violence in all its forms and adopt a political dialogue. The international conference for Iraq held in Baghdad on 10 March was one of the steps of the national reconciliation initiative. The Government had launched an initiative aiming to establish a new partnership with the international community to consolidate the peace process and pursue the development in all social, economic and political aspects throughout a number of projects. 

CONOR LENIHAN, Minister for Human Rights and Development at the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said last year, when the Council had its first meeting, all were very conscious that its establishment represented a great opportunity to improve the human rights architecture of the United Nations. It had been hoped that the Council would be the vehicle for a decisive shift in ensuring the effective implementation of the human rights standards crafted by its predecessor. Despite undoubted positives, the Council had regrettably not yet fulfilled all of these expectations. On occasion, it had shown itself to be timid where it could have been more resolute. There was in many quarters an understandable anxiety that it would not make full use of the opportunity. 

The situation in Darfur remained a disgrace; the whole of Africa knew it, as did decent people everywhere. It was not time to be timid: the Council should seize the opportunity to bolster its own credibility and that of the broad United Nations. The Council should act consensually in implementing the substantive recommendations addressed to it by the High-Level Mission. Given the central role played by women in development and in the defence of human rights, the continued use of gender-based violence throughout the world was all the more appalling. The full enjoyment of human rights could not be guaranteed without stability and development. While no part of the world was totally free from human rights abuses, the risk of human rights being violated was greater where political, economic and administrative systems were weak. The expectations of the Council among the broader world community were very high, and all should strive to meet these. 

MARTHA KARUA, Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs of Kenya, said Kenya had devoted enormous resources to socio-economic rights and poverty alleviation as part of its national economic recovery strategy. It was committed to the institution-building process within the Human Rights Council, in particular the Universal periodic Review, and viewed it as a major tool in strengthening the existing human rights mechanisms. Kenya underscored the importance of widening the scope of the Universal Periodic Review system. Kenya had ratified numerous international and regional human rights instruments. It had also established a National Commission and created new education programmes to promote human rights issues. Human rights featured strongly in the national Constitution. A new National Policy and Action Plans for the promotion and protection if human rights were under way. Inter-agency and inter-ministerial cooperation and civil society participation were advancing. 

Ms. Karua said Kenya saw corruption as a major barrier to the realization of socio-economic rights, and had made the fight against corruption a top government priority. Legal reforms, awareness raising programmes, macroeconomic and structural reform, and the elaboration of Codes of Ethics, accountability and transparency measures had begun. As well as enacting new legal measures in support of refugees’ rights, gender equality, disability rights and others, the Government had begun a massive reform programme aimed at establishing a fair and efficient system of governance. The Human Rights Council faced daunting challenges. To succeed, confrontation and condemnation must give way to cooperation. Kenya expressed its full support for the Council’s endeavours. 

PER STIG MØLLER, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said Denmark fully endorsed the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, on behalf of the European Union. Denmark had been working hard to establish the new Human Rights Council, which must be the pivotal human rights body of the United Nations. As Denmark was ready to shoulder its responsibility, it was therefore a candidate for a seat on the Human Rights Council at the upcoming elections. Dialogue and consensus must be at the core of the Human Rights Council. Even if a consensus could not be reached, the Council must not remain paralysed but must be ready to act in the interest of the victims of human rights violations. As it was important that the Council offered ways and means to alleviate the root causes of problems, offers of technical assistance should be integrated. It should also assess needs through the Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review. Non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions were strong voices of civil society and very often victims of human rights abuses. Denmark considered respect for human rights, democratisation and good governance as keys to development. 

Denmark remained one of the world’s largest bilateral donors of development assistance per capita and provided significant contributions to United Nations funds, programmes and agencies, the Minister said. Independent and effective monitoring was the essence in constructing and working with the instruments of the Human Rights Council, where all States needed to cooperate fully and in good faith. Sudan’s reaction to the request to visit Darfur by the Human Rights Council mission did not represent cooperation in good faith. The mission concluded thus that the Government of Sudan had failed to protect the population of Darfur and had participated in the crimes. Sudan must comply with its obligations under international law. Strengthening of the international legal order was a priority for Denmark during its membership of the Security Council 2005-2006. Torture was regrettably a problem on the rise despite the United Nations Convention against Torture. But Denmark had confidence in the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture that was commencing its work this year as an innovative and proactive instrument focused on prevention rather that condemnation. Nations needed assistance to shoulder the obvious human obligation that was the insurance of the respect for human rights. 

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Centre for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said all were gathered here with the purpose of taking preliminary stock of the process of institutional building of the Council, on which activity depended the effective functioning of one of the important pillars of the United Nations, alongside security and sustainable development. All human rights were universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and the international community should treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis, and the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds should be borne in mind. The Council should undertake a Universal Periodic Review, in a manner that ensured universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States, based on an interactive dialogue as well as on objective and reliable information. 

Politically motivated and biased approaches to situations of human rights in countries severely undermined the principles of objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, and were counterproductive to the cause of the promotion of human rights. Uzbekistan proceeded from the unity of all human rights, including political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. Democratic processes in Uzbekistan had gained a systemic, gradual and irreversible character. Little time remained for the coordination and finalisation of the process of institutional building for the Council. It was necessary to accomplish radical reforms in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on streamlining its methods of work directed at overcoming all existing problems and ensuring a constructive dialogue with all Member States of the United Nations. The future of the new human rights protection architecture of the United Nations depended on the results of the joint work, which should be depoliticised at the maximum level, exclude the selective approach and double standards, and should encourage an equitable, mutually respectful and constructive dialogue on human rights. 

KHADIGA AL-HAISAMI, Minister of Human Rights of Yemen, said Yemen had enacted many new laws in order to keep pace with rapid changes in political, social and cultural activity, notably increased press and public freedoms, a stronger civil society, a diversity of political activity and improved public participation in the political process. Observers had praised the free and fair elections of 2006. New civil society organizations in the areas such as women’s rights, children’s issues, prisoners and refugees, the rights to health and human rights education had emerged; there was a strengthening sense of partnership between the Yemen Government and these organizations. 

Several measures had been taken to support the advancement of women, and harmonization with international conventions was moving ahead. In the last elections, the number of registered female voters was close to the number of men, and women increasingly attained senior leadership positions, including in local councils and the judiciary. Human rights promotion and capacity-building programmes were being implemented across society. Cooperation with international and regional partners was fruitful. Anti-corruption laws had been enacted, along with judicial reforms, press freedom reforms and the ratification of a range of human rights instruments. In dealing with human rights, full impartiality was needed. Objectivity, fairness and justice must be applied. Protection and preservation of human rights must be safeguarded in the face of the fight against terrorism. The international community should move swiftly to stop violations in Palestine and support national reconciliation. It should support unity in Iraq and reconciliation in Somalia, and an objective, impartial and fair approach to the Darfur situation must be followed. 

JUAN MANUEL GÓMEZ ROBLEDO, Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico, reaffirmed Mexico’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights both in its territory and worldwide. Mexico considered the implementation of international standards at the national level as a priority in its human rights policy. The Commission for Governmental Policy on Human Rights had been created wherein the civil society organizations had a relevant participation concerning the application of human rights public policies. Mexico intended to apply its efforts together with the Office in Mexico of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare diagnoses on human rights situations. Though the country was still facing challenges, the implementation of international human rights obligations was a priority in order to overcome them. Mexico was looking forward to the adoption of many acts and protocols improving the situation of women and children, among others.

Mexico continued to work to reform its system of justice, as well as to prevent and eradicate torture and gender violence, the Vice Minister said. Also discrimination in all its forms was being combated. The country remained open to visits of international mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights and would therefore provide its full cooperation. As one of the main supporters of the establishment of the Human Rights Council, Mexico considered it essential to raise the significance of human rights within the United Nations and to avoid duplication of work among different United Nations bodies. As a result of the institutional building efforts, the Council should have a strengthened group of mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, ready to operate. The Council members must apply the strictest norms on the promotion and protection of human rights and must fully cooperate with the Council. Concerning the Universal Periodic Review, it was essential that it was able to provide adequate and effective follow-up to its results. With regard to the Special Procedures, the Council should strive for a strengthened system including the protection of human rights of indigenous peoples and migrants. Mexico acknowledged an undeniable political and legal value to the recommendations of the Human Rights Council. 

JAROSLAV NEVEROVIC, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, said human rights formed an essential part of our lives: their existence was inseparable from human nature, and they lay at the core of that existence. No one could be denied human rights. These were very common notions which seemed to be dear to all, however, these ideas should be repeated again and again to ensure they were not forgotten. This had been and still was a crucial year for defining the future activities and future role in the world of the Council. There was a need for a set of efficient procedures which would allow Member States to reach the goals that were set up when the United Nations human rights machinery reform process started. Future success of the Council lay in the hands of its members; and it would be as good as they were able to create it. The responsibility for all the success as well as failures lay with the States that set the rules of the Council. 

The primary responsibility to guarantee human rights was the self-evident duty of every State. There was a need for a body that could assist the States in international efforts in this regard, by providing a forum for substantive discussion, as well as evaluation services and advice. The Council was frequently compared to the Commission, but it should be clear that it was not a reformed Commission, but a new body. This understanding allowed not only new procedures to be set, but the use of new thinking. While the Council went through the institution-building process, it should not leave pressing human rights issues outside its attention. The people of the world were watching the Council’s activities with many hopes. The Council could make the difference: it was the obligation of the Member States to create conditions that would allow the Council to make the impact on the ground for improvement of particular situations. Results should be tangible: the beginning of the work was full of hopes, and it was vital that the institution live up to the expectations for the improvement of the human rights conditions for all people. 

ABDULLA SHAHID, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Maldives, said a political transformation was being engineered in the Maldives, aimed at creating a model of democracy founded on the principle of human rights promotion and protection. The Universal Periodic Review process was a key element in realizing this ambition and in highlighting areas where technical or capacity-building assistance would be needed. But the Universal Periodic Review must take account of Least Developed Countries. There should be a fund to support and orientate the Universal Periodic Review process in those countries. 
Mr. Shahid updated the Council on constitutional and democratic reforms in the Maldives, like the signing of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A national Human Rights Commission had already begun its work. Special Rapporteurs had made numerous visits. The Maldives was committed to its Reform Roadmap, which included police and penal bills, and reform measures covering criminal procedure, detention and other human rights related areas. The Council had set itself a short deadline for all these reforms, and there was bipartisan cooperation in speeding up completion of the reform agenda as a matter of urgency. 

CHO JUNG-PYO, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that the establishment of an effective, strong and credible Human Rights Council was central to place human rights as the third pillar of the United Nations along with development and peace and security. For the Council to be truly effective, it should be equipped with sufficient means to carry out its mandate. Going beyond mere dialogue and cooperation, it must be able to expeditiously respond to human rights abuses, in particular gross and systematic violations of human rights. The success of the Council depended on its ability to implement its decisions. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea attached particular importance to the promotion of inter-regional dialogue. 

Regarding the Universal Periodic Review, the Minister affirmed that it should be a meaningful and serious exercise for the advancement of the situation of people in need of protection. In addition, the Special Procedures with their independent expertise and assessment would be the essence of the human rights mechanism. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea supported the High Commissioner’s Plan of Action and her strategies to implement her Plan. Speaking of the situation in Darfur, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea called for swift action by the international community and was looking forward to productive deliberations at this session of the Council, given that the credibility of the Council would depend upon its response to this crisis. The Government shared the concerns of the international community on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and would continue to make efforts to bring about substantial improvements of conditions of life in the country. The Government regarded the promotion and protection of human rights as a priority in its national as well as foreign policy goals. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was actively striving to ratify more United Nations human rights instruments. 

DIANA STROFOVA, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said at its very first session, the Council had made a promising start by adopting the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, as well as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The review process related to institution building was successfully launched by creating working groups. Over the following eight months, however, the Council had not always lived up to its demanding mandate. In spite of its permanent nature and the relatively high frequency of its regular and special sessions, it became evident that Member States did not always share the same principles when there was a need for common action in the human rights field. It was up to the Council to reverse this initial trend and to prove it could become a fair, credible and effective organ in the field of the protection and promotion of human rights all around the world. 

The Council should be able to respond promptly and effectively to all kinds of human rights violations as they occurred, and should look into proper ways of how to address them. The Council was supposed to work in a results-oriented manner, and adopted decisions should be the subject of subsequent follow-up discussions and implementation. The proclaimed principles of cooperation and dialogue should not become an empty phrase, but rather a means for providing for widely accepted solutions to existing problems. The future credibility and effectiveness of the Council very much depended on the institution building process which was due to be accomplished by the end of June. The new mechanisms should preserve and improve the strengths of the former Commission, and eliminate its weaknesses. The establishment of a credible and effective Universal Periodic Review, the new feature in the United Nations human rights toolbox, was of paramount importance. 

RICARDO LARA WATSON, Vice Minister of Governance and Justice of Honduras, said human rights protection through improved justice and security was among the priorities of Honduras. This included strengthened police and prison systems, crime reduction and a fair and independent legal system. In the area of justice, the Government was aware of improvements needed in infrastructure and staffing. It was working to improve confidence in democratic institutions, and an annual evaluation of these was part of the Government’s agenda. 
There had been considerable investment in education at all levels, aimed at removing illiteracy and improving schooling in Honduras. There had been plans to improve and expand health services. A National Institute for Women had been created, and there were measures to improve and consolidate human rights protection for indigenous communities. Access to the services of the National Commissioner for Human Rights through written, telephone and email communication was being improved. There were initiatives in the field of child rights, domestic violence and equal opportunities, and ratification of numerous instruments. Reform priorities included tackling arbitrary detention and the issue of mercenaries, in which Working Groups of the Human Rights Commission had taken a keen interest. 

DON MCKINNON, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, said that the Commonwealth accounted for one third of the world’s population, and fundamental human rights were part of the cement that bound its members. Human rights were as universal as they were indivisible and it was the council’s task to ensure that they were kept so, individually and collectively, across the globe. Human rights were both the simplest of absolutes and the loftiest of ideals. But the Council in Geneva was a world away from the reality of the countless numbers who had been raped or tortured. The Commonwealth as a human rights organization included in its principles the promotion and protection of democracy, fundamental human rights and equality of all citizens. Although all commonwealth countries were signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, some countries still had to ratify other United Nations conventions, such as those on racial discrimination and discrimination against women. 

The practical assistance of the Commonwealth also included human rights training, the Secretary-General said. Support was also given to national human rights institutions. A model curriculum on human rights had been developed for Commonwealth universities. The organization ensured that human rights considerations were brought into all Commonwealth policy work, and into its practical programmes in areas such as health, education, gender equality and counter-terrorism measures. The Commonwealth already worked well with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and repeated its commitment to work with the Human Rights Council in any possible way. The Council’s success would be judged by the extent to which it achieved its mandate. It must be representative, effective, credible and accountable. 


Right of Reply

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the statement of Iran yesterday, France took pride in being a country open to all cultures, and was proud of its diversity. All citizens had the same rights, and France guaranteed the freedom of conscience. The five million Muslims living in France had every possibility to make themselves heard and to contribute to the public debate. France fought with firmness against all forms of xenophobia, racism and discrimination, including discrimination and violence based on religion or belief. 

Responding to Byelorussia, if the delegation of Byelorussia felt offended that the name of its country could be mentioned in a speech on human rights, then the only possibility was to suggest that that country invite the competent mechanisms of the Council to verify for themselves the true situation. If the Special Procedures, after visiting the area, determined that the allegations of violations of human rights were unfounded, then the speaker would be able to present his excuses to the Byelorussian delegation. 

MARTIN HUTH (Germany), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the statement of Libya on the case of the Bulgarian nurses, the European Union continued to demonstrate its compassion and solidarity with the plight of the HIV/AIDS infected children and their families in Benghazi. However, it expressed its grave concern over the unacceptable verdict of the Criminal Court in Libya, convicting and sentencing to death in a retrial five Bulgarian nurses and one Palestinian doctor who had already 
spent almost eight years in prison in connection with the case. This verdict ignored strong evidence from world-renowned international experts as to the innocence of the defendants. As a matter of principle, the European Union reiterated its opposition to capital punishment under all circumstances, and urgently expected an urgent conclusion of the judicial process according to internationally accepted standards. A positive, fair and prompt solution should be brought to the case, leading expeditiously to the release of the medical workers. 

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia), speaking in a right of reply, said concerning the right of reply by Turkey yesterday, the Representative of Turkey, while, referring to the issue of the commission of historians to discuss “the dark chapters of history”, had deliberately omitted the proposal made by the President of Armenia to discuss all the spectrum of bilateral problems in an intergovernmental format. The problems between the two countries and the reconciliation between the two peoples could not and should not be delegated to historians and academics. On the issue of the Armenian-Turkish closed border, it was up to the Turkish side to decide whether by opening this border they contributed to the creation of an atmosphere of confidence and trust in the region. Armenia called for the establishment of bilateral relations with Turkey without any preconditions from both sides, including that the recognition of the genocide was still on the table.

VELIA DE PIERO (United States), speaking in a right to reply, said with regards to the speech by the Foreign Minister of Cuba yesterday, he would like to set the record straight. Terrorism was real. Every country had been affected by it. All civilised countries needed to pull together to fight terrorism. Within the framework of democracy and the rule of law, the United States Government had adopted policies to fulfil its responsibility to protect its citizens and territory. The United States thoroughly addressed its policy on the detention of enemy combatants in reports to the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee. Torture was prohibited by all United States personnel in all locations at all times. The United States’ commitment to the Special Procedures mechanism was well known. The United States was struck by Cuba’s newfound support for a range of civil and political mandates, and sincerely hoped this new support would soon lead to invitations from Cuba to these mandate-holders to visit Cuba, for the first time in their history. 

PATRICK CHINAMASA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said Zimbabwe wished to counter the misrepresentation and mischaracterisation by the Minister of the United Kingdom of the aborted campaign of thuggery and mayhem perpetrated by the MDC opposition in a suburb of Harare on 11 March, which was sponsored by the intelligence services of the united Kingdom and its allies to effect a regime change agenda in Zimbabwe. The irony was not lost on Zimbabwe that the United Kingdom was the first to draw attention to the event, quick to criticise but was not prepared to offer sympathy to those affected by the violence. Let the United Kingdom be informed that Zimbabwe was determined to remain free from its colonial slave master, and it saw through the machinations to recolonise the country. Zimbabwe would resist this. Zimbabwe would never be a colony again. 

ABDEL HAMEED ABDEEN (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply, said that he would like to respond to the interventions from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Slovakia and others about the situation in Darfur and the fact-finding mission. The position concerning the entry visas had been elaborated in the speech made to this forum. Sudan asked the Representative of United Kingdom not to judge this issue out of its context. The meeting between the President of Sudan and the Secretary-General of the United Nations had taken place. Sudan could not be forced to accept a member of the fact-finding mission whose independence and objectivity were questionable. The honourable United Kingdom Minister knew that the composition of the mission had been influenced. The situation in Darfur was improving, contrary to what the honourable Minister of the United Kingdom had said. This had been confirmed by the United States Chargé d’Affaire in Khartoum. The problem could be solved and Sudan was determined to do so. By signing the Darfur Peace Agreement, the beginning of the solution was dawning. Sudan was looking forward to enhance this agreement and to have other parties join in. 

FAZIL CAN KORKUT (Turkey), speaking in a right to reply, said last week in Cyprus, the Greek Cypriot administration had finally demolished a wall. It had been hoped this would be the catalyst for positive developments, but yesterday’s remarks had shattered this illusion. It was the Greek Cypriots who rejected the United Nations plan for a comprehensive settlement of the issue. It was paradoxical that they used this forum to raise the issues that would have been settled under the United Nations plan. Turkish presence on the island was fully legitimate under the 1956 treaties. The presence of troops was a vital element in order to protect the Turkish population. Instead of searching for settlement within the United Nations framework, the Greek Cypriot administration had been instead signing bilateral agreements, with the aim of exploiting the natural resources around the island. The administration was not entitled to sign agreements on behalf of the whole island, and was thus violating the rights of the Cypriot people. The victimised people on the island were the Turkish Cypriots, who continued to suffer under a forced embargo. 

AZAD CAFAROV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply, said if an insider to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan would question the real intention of the familiar tirade performed by heart by the Armenian Minister yesterday, the only answer that came to mind was that he had once again tried to misuse the high rostrum of the Council to spread misleading and misplaced propaganda attempted to launder the atrocities committed by Armenian aggressors in the occupied Azerbaijani territories. He recalled the massacre of Khojaly in which 613 Azerbaijani men, women and children died on 26 February 1992, the first in modern European history, the Armenian minister’s remarks may be interpreted as an aim to score points on the eve of elections in Armenia. But why, then, did he agree to have talks here in Geneva with his Azerbaijani counterpart? As in the Azerbaijani saying, he said “no matter how many times you pronounce the word bakhlava, the taste does not get sweeter”. 

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said that his delegation rejected the statements made by the “South Korean” delegate. The so-called human rights concern represented no more than a fabrication of those hostile forces aiming at naming and shaming the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the pretext of human rights. It was thus running against the spirit of the inter-Korean relation. There was a lot more to talk about human rights concerning “South Korea” because if the country was truly interested in improving genuine human rights, it should then abolish its national security law.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in a right of reply, said the delegate of the United States was surprised by what had been said, but Cuba was not surprised by United States cynicism, hypocrisy and lack of dignity, considering the United States attitude on terrorism. In Miami, anti-Cuban groups had full impunity, and were training and maintaining weapons, maintaining terrorist groups against Cuba. This kind of terrorist link was something that was being done by the United States Government against many Latin American countries, where the CIA even participated in attacks and with plans to assassinate the Cuban head of State. It had even trained and armed members of Al-Qaeda. Cuba had not invited the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and two others to Cuba, as the mandate of these three should not be just in Cuba, it should also cover Washington. The United States should invite and authorise the Special Rapporteurs to visit Guantanamo, which was the only terrorist location in Cuba, maintained as it was by the United States. The impunity the United States had extended to terrorist groups in Miami should be recognised, and the Special Rapporteurs should visit those areas as well. 

JAMES DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), speaking in a right of reply, said the Turkish representative did 
not reply to human rights violations mentioned yesterday but instead politicized the issue by bringing in other matters. He asked whether Turkey abided by binding Security Council and Human Rights Council decisions that remained unimplemented since 1974. Human rights judgments held Turkey responsible for grave violations of 14 articles of the Human Rights Convention in Cyprus. European Court judgments were binding and Cyprus called on Turkey to implement them. Cyprus would have hoped that the Turkish representative maintained the respect and dignity of this Council. Earlier Security Council resolutions had condemned the purported unilateral declaration in the occupied area and called for non-recognition of the illegal secessionist entity in the North. 

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia), speaking in its second right of reply, said that it had not been the intention of Armenia to discuss the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations before the Council, but the comments from the delegate of Azerbaijan left no choice than to address his dubious facts. Concerning the first massacre in East Europe, the delegate from Azerbaijan maybe did not recall well what had happened, when for three days, Azerbaijan had pillaged and killed Armenians. This was the first case of ethnic cleansing. Armenia believed that there was a solution possible for the conflict and called upon Azerbaijan to join in. 

FAZIL CAN KORKUT (Turkey), speaking in a second right of reply, said the terminology used in referring to the Greek Cypriot side was due to the fact that the administration of that side did not represent the island as a whole, and this was the crux of the issue. The remarks of the Greek Cypriot representative were a smokescreen to divert attention from the lack of political will to find a comprehensive settlement. Due to the difficulties created by the Greek Cypriot side, it had not been possible to establish working groups or committees. 

AZAD CAFAROV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a second right of reply, said the Council should know that it had been referring to the ethnic cleansing in Armenia, when Azeribaijanis were forced to flee the country. Several adjacent territories had been asked to withdraw all occupying forces from various areas, including Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia was responsible for killing thousands. With regards to self-determination and territorial integrity, Azerbaijan recognised that of all countries in the area, and Armenia should recognise that talks could only continue from this perspective, within the boundaries recognised by the international community. 

JAMES DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus) speaking in a second right of reply, said that Security Council resolutions 541 and 550 condemned the secessionist entity and called on all States not to recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Cyprus was committed to the July agreements and to working towards a comprehensive settlement, and he asked Turkey to show the same political will as Cyprus. Human rights violations had no expiry date and should not be subject to political expediency, and they did not become obsolete. Violations were a result of continued military occupation of a large part of Cyprus’s territory.