Source: – HYPERLINK http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/29D3AE204934587CC125729F00477B61?OpenDocument http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/29D3AE204934587CC125729F00477B61?OpenDocument
Date: March 15, 2007

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES INTERACTIVE DEBATE WITH HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
15 March 2007
The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its interactive debate with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour concerning her annual report which she presented yesterday.

In concluding remarks, the High Commissioner said regarding Nepal, at the moment, work had to focus on the deep-rooted marginalisation and exclusion of groups who wished to be included in the new Nepal that was being built. On the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, she shared the concerns expressed in the General Assembly resolution on the human rights situation in that country, and continued to believe that engagement with the Special Rapporteur would be an important step forward in addressing the situation. On allegations of racism in Japan, the Special Rapporteur on racism and related intolerances had visited the country and had submitted a report that had been subject for an interactive dialogue in the Council. 

Ms. Arbour said on human rights difficulties in Sri Lanka and witness protection in relation to the Commission of Inquiry the Government had launched, there could be no serious effort to combat impunity without a serious framework to protect witnesses, and discussions were taking place with the Government, which understood the importance of such a framework. This issue was also relevant for Sudan. On the situation in Kosovo, her Office would be strengthening its presence in Kosovo, in light of the serious human rights concerns in that region, in particular intolerance towards minorities. Regarding work in Iraq, the Office worked very closely with the Minister for Human Rights, and offered her all support within the serious constraints existing in light of the security situation. The efforts in Sudan should be focussed on protecting the victims of human rights violations, and addressing the responsibility of perpetrators. Humanitarian access was the most critical factor. 

Speakers participating in the interactive debate stressed issues such as supporting the fieldwork of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the need to increase it; poverty eradication policies; and the importance of ensuring gender equality and protecting women and children. A number of countries, including Uganda, Serbia, Nepal, Zimbabwe and Sudan also rejected some allegations made against them and outlined national efforts to uphold the promotion and protection of human rights. 

Participating in the interactive dialogue were Uganda, Serbia, Nepal, United States, Sweden, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Republic of Korea, Spain, Senegal and Italy.

Also providing statements in the interactive dialogue were the Asian Forum for Human Rights (joint statement), International Commission of Jurists, International Indian Treaty Council, International Humanist and ethical Union, Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, Association of World Education, Pax Romana, Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de L’Homme, and Soka Gakkai International.

Speaking in right of reply at the end of the interactive dialogue were Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Iran and Japan.

The Council is meeting today non-stop from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. At noon, it started to review reports prepared by intergovernmental working groups on the institution-building process of the Council, after which it will take up reports prepared by the Secretariat, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights and the Secretary-General.
Interactive Dialogue

CISSY TALIWAKU (Uganda) said with regards to the report of the High Commissioner on Uganda, on the question of political human rights developments, Uganda had made huge progress in building the institutions of a democratic State, with separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive powers. As a result of the reforms implemented over the last 20 years, there was a vibrant democracy, a free and unfettered press, and an unfettered judiciary. On the peace talks, the Government was committed to a comprehensive solution to the conflict, and Uganda was at peace, with the situation in the northern areas returning to normalcy, allowing all parties to return to normal activities, with the return process going slowly but smoothly, and with the Government doing all it could, within its financial means. 

All regions of the world were affected by the proliferation of illicit weapons. States had the duty of protecting their citizens from the misuse of weapons, and the Government of Uganda was working in this direction. All States should carry out a regional disarmament exercise. On transitional justice, the Government was committed to granting amnesty to those who had voluntarily laid down their arms. On indictments by the International Criminal Court, the Government was committed to fighting impunity, and would continue to work to reconcile the difficult elements of justice and the fight for peace. 

SLOBODAN VUKCEVIC (Serbia) said Serbia aligned itself with the statement of the European Union, especially regarding strengthening the human rights dimension in United Nations missions. The situation in the province of Kosovo and Metohija was grave, in spite of the United Nations presence there. Could the High Commissioner provide details on how serious human rights concerns and upcoming challenges would be tackled, and how the presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be strengthened in Kosovo and Metohija. 

BHAGIRATH BASNER (Nepal) said that there had been substantial improvements as highlighted in the report in Nepal. The ongoing peace-process was moving forward in the direction of democratisation and granting fundamental freedom to its people. However, the report could in some points have been more complete. At this crucial stage of state construction, Nepal did not want any group to be left out of the building process of the nation. The Government of Nepal agreed with the High Commissioner that the question of human rights was central and important for the peace process. Nepal was in the final stage and was optimistic that there would be a fully understanding of building the peace process. 

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the United States supported the work which the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did in the field, often at risk to their well being in places such as Darfur. It had been hoped that the Government of Sudan would follow through on the commitment it undertook when it accepted the consensus resolution of the December Special Session and allow the Assessment Mission to visit the region. 

The United States was also concerned by recent events in Zimbabwe, where democratic opponents of the Mugabe regime who gathered peacefully for a prayer meeting were brutally attacked by Government security forces over the weekend. The United States believed the Council should consider urgent situations such as this. The report on the recent visits to Asia and Latin America were appreciated, and future updates on “Burma”, “North Korea”, Iran and Cuba were requested. These were countries where citizens were unable to exercise their basic civil and political rights, suffered the repressive tactics of dictatorial regimes, and waited at home for the international community to respond to their pleas for support. 

CHRISTOPHER BENG (Sweden) welcomed the focus of the Office of the High Commissioner on the fight against poverty and widespread violations of economic, social and cultural rights. In fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals there had been collective commitments to human rights. Empowerment of the poor through participation in the political process, accountability by governments and non-discrimination in the execution of economic and social policies were key to these efforts. Sweden requested clarification on the efforts made by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in this regard. 

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said that Zimbabwe was concerned about the change of the tone to the worse in this Council. Zimbabwe had nothing to hide and wanted to cooperate with the United Nations field officer in the country. Concerning an illegal political rally in Zimbabwe on 11 March, reinforcements had had to be called in. The opposition leaders were among the injured. A demonstrator had been killed. The matter was now in the hands of the judiciary. This had not been a real prayer meeting, because on the same day, another prayer meeting was held in another part of Harare without intervention. Zimbabwe denounced that some countries wanted to turn African countries against each other. Zimbabwe was looking forward to working together with the Human Rights Council. 

ABDUL MONEIM OSMAN (Sudan) said Sudan had hoped the report of the High Commissioner would give equal space to various elements of human rights. The High Commissioner had called for an international presence to defend victims in Darfur, and it was queried whether this was in line with the United Nations Charter as to the role of regional organizations and their role in preserving peace and security. This recommendation was perhaps linked to the criteria of the International Criminal Court, and it was surprising that the High Commissioner had requested such a mission without discussing it with the country concerned. 

In view of the current understanding between Sudan, the African Union and the United Nations with regards to the Darfur Agreement, there was legitimate concern about the contents of the report of the High Commissioner. This was a misuse of international legitimacy and of the principle to protect, which was used as a pretext to interfere in a country that was attempting to restructure, as was the case in Sudan. The consequences of non-consensual intervention were seen on the television every day; this intervention was no magic wand, it was instead often a political tool for certain States. 

KIM MOON-HWAN (Republic of Korea) said the process of institution building in the Council had benefited from input from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the delegation supported a strengthened field presence of OHCHR. The Office should base its deliberations on objective and impartial information. Independent experts should play an increasing role. The Office should identify expertise and develop tools for monitoring. Special Procedures should have full and professional assistance to enable them to work effectively, and there should be enhanced systematic interaction between the Office and Special Procedures mechanisms and UN bodies. Efforts to put women’s and gender issues at the core of the Office’s work were commended. The importance of human rights education in primary and secondary schools, and the need for in depth study of the role of globalization and multinational cooperation towards human rights was stressed. The Republic of Korea hoped OHCHR would play a role in these areas. 

SILVIA ESCOBAR (Spain) said that Spain supported the statement of the Ambassador of Germany on behalf of the European Union. Spain wanted to emphasize the general efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the promotion of the rights of women and the eradication of poverty, and the work done in the field. Now was a crucial phase for the Council and it was hoped that in June the institution-building process would be finalized. Spain hoped that the efforts made to foster the rights of women would be developed furthermore. 

The Council must play a fundamental role in this matter because women were always among the victims of human rights violations. The trafficking of women and children had also been highlighted in the report. Spain favourably viewed the establishment of field offices for bilateral cooperation. It was time for a substantial improvement in the human rights of women in all the spheres covered. The main cause of the Human Rights Council was to ensure that all people were enjoying human rights all over the world. 

MOUSSA BOCAR LY (Senegal) said the measures already taken in the report of the High Commissioner and those planned to defend gender equality and the culture of human rights were appreciated, as was the intention of establishing within the Office of the High Commissioner a department for women’s rights and parity. The transfer of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women from New York to Geneva would give fresh impetus to the fight against the discrimination from which women suffered. The fight against poverty was part of the struggle to ensure the right to development. The interdependence and indivisibility of human rights was undeniable. 

There was surprise that the right to food, which had been subject to lengthy deliberations, was not reflected in the work of the High Commissioner. There was a need to respect multilingualism as a part of cultural diversity so that all delegations could fully participate in the work of the Council. The prestigious choice of Senegal to host the regional headquarters for human rights had been welcomed. 

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) supported other speakers in thanking the High Commissioner for her report. Italy was particularly concerned about the most vulnerable, such as the rights of children, economic and social discrimination, and racism and xenophobia. Italy supported effective action to promote women’s rights and combat violence and discrimination. Italy was proud to support the Office financially, including its contribution to the fund for Victims of Torture, which it hoped to increase. Italy’s support for work toward the abolition of the death penalty and negotiations was based on mutual respect and dialogue. 

RUKSHAN FERNANDO, of the Asian Forum For Human Rights, said in a joint statement that there were only two sub-regional offices of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Asia, covering thus less than 20 per cent of the population in the Asia region. The High Commissioner for Human Rights was urged to give a priority to setting up sub-regional offices in South and Northeast Asia with a view to providing better assistance and services, including the protection of human rights defenders who were working under difficult situations and threats. 

LAILA KARIMI, of International Commission of Jurists, said there was great concern about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, where civilians were caught in the middle of an escalating conflict, in which the fundamental principle of distinction between civilians and combatants was not being respected. The Council and the High Commissioner should establish a full-fledged international human rights field operation. The Council should also regularly monitor the situation of human rights in Colombia, and make recommendations to the State to ensure compliance with its obligations under international human rights law and recommendations to all armed actors to respect international humanitarian law. 

ESTEBANCIO CASTRO, of International Indian Treaty Council, said the great contribution of the Council was the possibility for indigenous peoples to participate in its sessions. The Global Caucus of Indigenous Peoples affirmed its support for the Special Rapporteur and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and recommended that a new Permanent Expert Group be established. He also called for collaboration between the International Indian Treaty Council, the Office and Council. 

ROY BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, said that if a State had something to hide, it would always find reasons not to cooperate with the Council, whether it would be with a Periodic Review, with Special Rapporteurs or with a Commission of Inquiry. The Council was barely one year old and already had a major credibility problem. The reputation of the Council would be determined by its response to the crisis in Darfur. If the Council failed to consider the report of the high-level mission, a clear condemnation of the failure of the Government of Sudan to cooperate with the Council should be made. 

HARTMUT SCHONKNECHT, of Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany, said the acknowledgement of the importance of the universal protection of human rights and non-discrimination as key pillars of the United Nations human rights system was welcomed. In the upcoming weeks, the Council would hear about numerous human rights violations experienced on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. The High Commissioner should suggest to the Council how it could most effectively address these issues, and what support the Office could provide in order to ensure universal human rights protection without discrimination, including on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as for those affected by HIV/AIDS. 

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, supported much of the contents of the High Commissioner’s report on the Universal Periodic Review, mandates and other issues. Neo-liberal governments, state terrorism and corporations continued to deprive indigenous peoples of land and resources, and debt and poverty remained serious scourges. The World Bank and financial institutions of the United Nations had failed. Rich countries had not shown the political determination needed to tackle these problems, and the international order remained deeply unjust, socially racist and morally insupportable. 

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association of World Education, said that in the statement of the High Commissioner, she had referred to the mission mandated by the Council to Sudan. The Association asked for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in providing current and future support for advancing human rights in Darfur. The majority of the non-governmental organizations present in this Council were firmly convinced that it should endorse the recommendations made by the high-level mission, despite the fact that one of its members, an Ambassador, had since left the mission. It was crucial for its own survival that the Council was seized by the ongoing genocidal tragedy in Darfur without further delay. 

BUDI TJAHJONO, of Pax Romana, said the report of the High Commissioner provided valuable information and indicated the way forward. One of the great challenges facing human rights over the decades was how to appropriately extend the net of human rights accountability to non-State actors. In the Asian region as a whole, there was a dearth of regional and sub-regional human rights institutions beyond national borders, and this should be remedied. Standard setting was an ongoing work, and a key challenge in this regard concerned all forms of discrimination faced by elderly persons including exclusion, restriction and preference.

MARINA YUNG, of Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme, complimented the Office on the work done in Colombia, where the trials of military members suspected of violations were welcomed. The Federation called for further action to protect human rights, demobilisation of paramilitary groups, and to stop attacks on human rights defenders. The Federation supported the work in Guinea Conakry where it called for stronger condemnation of excessive use of force and arbitrary detention, and noted, with reference to violations in Chechnya and extra-judicial killings of human rights defenders, the setting up of the Office of the High Commissioner in the Russian Federation. 

KAZUNARI FUJII, of Soka Gakkai International, said in a joint statement that he wanted to know how the Council incorporated the primary responsibility of the promotion of human rights education and learning in institution building of the Council. The first phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education was scheduled to conclude at the end of 2007. Would the Council consider either to extend the first phase or alternatively to identify a sector or issue of the second phase after the end of the first phase sometime within this year in order to meet one of the primary responsibilities of the Council, which was the promotion of human rights education and learning. 


Concluding Comments by the High Commissioner for Human Rights

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said regarding the work in Nepal, it should be stressed that from the beginning the presence had not been limited to the capital - there had been field offices. An inclusive approach, in the spirit of new legislation, was being worked on. At the moment, work had to focus on the deep-rooted marginalisation and exclusion of the groups who wished to be included in the new Nepal that was being built. It was hoped that collaboration with the Government would expand in the future. 

Regarding the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ms. Arbour said that she shared the concerns expressed in the General Assembly resolution on the human rights situation in that country, and continued to believe that engagement with the Special Rapporteur would be an important step forward in addressing the situation. On allegations of racism in Japan, on that issue the Special Rapporteur on racism and related intolerances had visited the country and had submitted a report that had been subject for an interactive dialogue in the Council, which latter was an important way of ensuring that issues were debated. 

On human rights difficulties in Sri Lanka and witness protection in relation to the Commission of Inquiry the Government had launched, there could be no serious effort to combat impunity without a serious framework to protect witnesses, and discussions were taking place with the Government, which understood the importance of such a framework. This issue was also relevant for Sudan. On the situation in Kosovo, the Office had been active for more than 20 years in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and would be closing the office in June 2007, but would remain in the region by strengthening the presence in Kosovo, in light of the serious human rights concerns in that region, in particular intolerance towards minorities. 

Regarding work in Iraq, the Office worked very closely with the Minister for Human Rights, and offered her all support within the serious constraints existing in the light of the security situation, in particular with the need to increase the rule of law and allow the country to have a means for addressing the impunity which contributed to the excessive violence. The efforts in Sudan should be focussed on protecting the victims of human rights violations, and addressing the responsibility of perpetrators. On the necessary protection of civilians, there was a need for increased international presence, and with regards to the problem of humanitarian access, aid workers were facing violence at a previously unseen scale, leaving victims in need of ever greater aid. Humanitarian access was the most critical factor. 

On the question of Islamophobia, a report had been presented at the previous session of the Council, in which it had been stressed that the freedom of belief and non-discrimination were one of the strongest pillars of human rights and should be guaranteed for all. The promotion of tolerance needed to be addressed at the policy and the political level. All rights holders were entitled to turn to their Government to ensure their protection from violence, including State-sponsored violence, and this principle suffered no exception, and should be applied regardless of any personal characteristic, including sexuality and sexual orientation. Further discrimination based on gender was also an issue the Office was focussing upon. 

Through research and advocacy as well as field work and partnerships with Governments, United Nations country teams and non-governmental organizations, particular effort was being done to focus on poverty in a country-specific manner and to promote women’s rights. The absence of any elaborated reference to the right to food in the report was not to indicate a lack of interest in this issue. 

Rights of Reply

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in a right of reply, said that it was outrageous to see how the imperial dictatorship of the United States which started with the ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples. Hundreds of thousands of Africans were uprooted from their homes and enslaved to observe the racist, dominant behaviour and messianic dogmas of this empire. Following history, looking at the situation in the Caribbean and in Latin America, there was complicity in disappearances, torture, and assassination of politicians. The dictatorship of Washington in its imperial mission had killed millions in South East Asia, and had manipulated the sad episode of September 11 to unleash aggression and to carry out spying on their own citizens. Iraq was subjected to the aggression and occupation of the empire. The High Commissioner should focus attention on this dictatorship. 

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said that he regretted the statements of the Japanese delegation and the one from the United States. Domestic violations were committed by both countries, such as what the United States did and was still doing in Iraq. Concerning Japan, it was responsible for huge human rights violations in the past and present such as abductions, genocidal killings and slavery. Japan even tried to deny those crimes. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea urged that Japan should consider its own violations of human rights instead of playing political games. 

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the alleged deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka, statistics indicated that allegations of abductions, disappearances and killings were on a declining trend. Investigations had also resolved a number of alleged abductions. Statements had also been heard on the situation of internally displaced persons, who due to natural occurrences had become displaced. The Government took care of such persons, providing them with shelter and food and compensation. Long-term solutions were being sought for internally displaced persons. In spite of the huge challenges facing Sri Lanka, including terrorist threats as well as natural threats, economic growth continued, and the Government had been able to allocate greater resources to the health and education systems. 

Sri Lanka continued to hold its high place in the United Nations Development Index. Throughout the years, the Government had continued to fund the entire Governmental administration, even in areas where the LTTE had appropriated a significant portion of the resources. Economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights were one side of the same coin, and yet they were still addressed individually; thus, a more comprehensive and balanced approach was required. 

SEYED HOSSEIN REZVANI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply, objected to the statement of the Representative of the United States. This was a country recognized and condemned by the people of the world as a most dictatorial empire and serious violator of human rights around the world. The unlawful, unilateral occupation and invasion of Iraq has caused death, misery and destruction; there had been rape and killing by American soldiers. This was an arrogant adventure, a slap in the face of the Security Council and the values of the UN system and Human Rights Council. Guantanamo presented appalling facts: torture, inhumane and degrading treatment. Prisoners were held in Iraq in appalling circumstances, and the United States gave same theatrical responses and showed a failure to yield to international objection. 

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said that the statement of the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding racial discrimination in Japan was totally unfounded. Japan had acceded to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and was working together with a Special Rapporteur on that topic. The latter had visited Japan for that purpose. Concerning the statements of the past, clear statements were already made yesterday by Japan. Japan hoped that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would start cooperating with a Special Rapporteur, which had not happened yet and would stop raising new issues in order to hide or justify its great violations of human rights. 

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a second right of reply, said the Japanese allegations were rejected, as these were part of a dirty political lobby, aimed at naming and shaming the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The only Japanese case had been completely resolved. The only outstanding problem in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea-Japan relations was the lack of a Japanese decision to settle outstanding crimes from the Second World War. Japan continued to deny its past crimes, as had recently been made clear, and this was indicative of its intentions to repeat these past crimes, as evident in Japan today where rampant discrimination took place, targeting Koreans. Japan should settle its past and present crimes. 

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, said he did not clearly understand some of the statements of “North Korea”. The abduction case of Japan was the only one resolved - were there other cases of abduction? In answer to the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said former Prime Ministers of Japan had expressed heartfelt apology. He requested international cooperation in seeking cooperation between Japan and Korea, and hoped this same encounter would not take place next time.