Source: – HYPERLINK http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/15026183B556FB19C12571EE006194F0?OpenDocument http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/15026183B556FB19C12571EE006194F0?OpenDocument
Date: September 19, 2006

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON SUMMARY EXECUTIONS AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS
19 September 2006
The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the reports of its mandate-holders on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and on the human rights of internally displaced persons. 

Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said it was a universally agreed upon principle of human rights law that States had an obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish violations of the right to life promptly thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies. Many States, however, failed to comply with that obligation in situations of armed conflict and occupation. The existence of an armed conflict did, of course, have implications. One was that the human rights regime was complemented by the regime of international humanitarian law. In the past couple of years, there had been a number of high-profile pronouncements by officials, including at the most senior level of government in highly developed countries, that they had given orders for the police or the military to “shoot to kill”. 

Walter Kalin, Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, said it was his conviction that in order to ensure the full protection of the human rights of internally displaced persons, three things were essential: there should be a strong normative framework, political will and the capacity to protect. Commendable efforts had been undertaken at regional levels to enhance the normative framework for the protection of internally displaced persons. It was the Representative’s understanding that the mandate to pursue dialogue with Governments, as well as to mainstream the human rights of internally displaced persons into all relevant parts of the United Nations, was a call to support the strengthening of political will for the protection of the internally displaced and their rights. 

Speaking as concerned countries were Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Georgia, Nepal and Sudan. Participating in the interactive dialogue were Pakistan, China, Guatemala, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Argentina, Iran, Canada, Switzerland, Algeria, Australia, Cuba, Finland, Russian Federation, Norway, Armenia, Liechtenstein, Austria, Philippines and Albania.

Also taking the floor were non-governmental organizations from Forum Asia, Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peoples (MRAP), Human Rights Watch, International Buddhist Foundation, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and Pax Romana. 

The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 September, to conclude its dialogue with Mr. Alston and Mr. Kalin. The Council will discuss the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Adrian Severin, which should have been taken up today, on 27 September. The Council will also discuss tomorrow the reports of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children.

Documents to be Presented to the Council

The Council has before it a report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons (E/CN.4/2006/71), Walter Kalin, who says the last year has dramatically shown the scope and vulnerabilities of persons also displaced by natural disaster. At the same time, the humanitarian reform and wider United Nations reform processes have provided new opportunities to strengthen the response to internal displacement, whatever the cause. The present report sets out the comprehensive human rights-centred approach to all activities undertaken pursuant to the Representative’s mandate, and examines his dialogue with Governments over the last year, his efforts to mainstream the human rights of internally displaced persons into all parts of the United Nations system, his promotion of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, particularly at regional and national levels, and a variety of other activities promoting the human rights of internally displaced persons. He concludes with an assessment of the overall impact of his mandate thus far and provides a series of recommendations for future action.

An addendum to the above report ((E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.1) contains a framework for national responsibility, intended to help Governments address the problem of the internally-displaced in their countries in all aspects. An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.2) contains an account of the Representative’s mission to Nepal. An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.3) contains an account of the Representative’s mission to Croatia. An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.4) contains an account of the Representative’s mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina. An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.5) contains an account of the Representative’s mission to Serbia and Montenegro. An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.6) contains an account of the Representative’s mission to the Sudan. An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.7) contains an account of the Representative’s mission to Georgia.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (E/CN.4/2006/53, Add.1 and Add. 2) for its consideration. The report is submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 2005/34. The report and its addenda provide analysis of communications sent to Governments, which describe alleged cases of extrajudicial execution, reports on country missions to Nigeria and Sri Lanka during 2005, a report on the principle of transparency in relation to the death penalty; and several reports aimed at following up on earlier country missions to the Sudan, Brazil and Jamaica. The report notes that the establishment of the Human Rights Council represents a singular opportunity to develop a more credible human rights system. Among its recommendations, the report says that the Human Rights Council should establish a procedure where specific cases of persistent or especially problematic non-cooperation with mandate-holders are automatically flagged and taken up by the Council.

Introductory Statements by the Special Procedures 

PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said requests for an invitation to visit were all too seldom granted. The Commission lost much of its credibility by permitting a system in which those governments, which refused to extend an invitation to a mandate-holder, were rewarded by silence while those which honoured the Commission’s call for accountability were pushed by the preparation of demanding reports. The Council should resolve not to accept such an iniquitous and self-defeating approach. He commended the Governments of Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Guatemala, Lebanon and Israel for permitting him to visit their countries. The questions that arose, however, was why they should have to respond to detailed critical reports while a host of other countries which had either dismissed or ignored such requests were exempted from scrutiny. His report drew particular attention to the problems experienced in relation to his repeated requests to visit Iran. Despite the existence of a standing invitation, his repeated requests and various meetings with officials had led nowhere. 

It was a universally agreed upon principle of human rights law that States had an obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish violations of the right to life promptly thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies. Many States, however, failed to comply with that obligation in situations of armed conflict and occupation. The existence of an armed conflict did, of course, have implications. One was that the human rights regime was complemented by the regime of international humanitarian law. In the past couple of years, there had been a number of high-profile pronouncements by officials, including at the most senior level of government in highly developed countries, that they had given order for the police or the military to “shoot to kill”. His report on Nigeria identified problems in the administration of the death penalty and the system of policing. The situation in Sri Lanka had gravely deteriorated since his visit at the end of 2005. Seven hundred civilians were widely reported to have been killed in the past four months. The Council should take prompt action to resolve the problem in that country. The time had come for the establishment of a full-fledged international human rights monitoring mission. 

WALTER KALIN, Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, said it was his conviction that in order to ensure the full protection of the human rights of internally displaced persons, three things were essential: there should be a strong normative framework; there should be political will; and there should be the capacity to protect. His work addressed these three pillars, which he believed should underpin all activities that aimed to enhance the protection of the rights and well being of internally displaced persons. Commendable efforts had been undertaken at regional levels to enhance the normative framework for the protection of internally displaced persons. It was the Representative’s understanding that the mandate to pursue dialogue with Governments, as well as to mainstream the human rights of internally-displaced persons into all relevant parts of the United Nations, was a call to support the strengthening of political will for the protection of the internally displaced and their rights. 

In the spirit of constructive dialogue, the Representative’s first year had been particularly active, and he took the fact that the number of requests for a visit exceeded his capacities to do so as an indication of Governments’ willingness to further the protection of the internally displaced in their own countries. He was about to send a letter to the Government of Nepal and the parties negotiating, reminding them that there was much to be done to support a durable solution for the many who had been displaced by the armed conflict. Little progress had been made towards durable solutions in Croatia for the internally displaced of Serb origin who wished to return. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, progress in finding durable solutions also remained slow. A letter had been sent to the authorities of Montenegro, encouraging them in the work ahead, and a swift reply had been received, containing assurance of their commitment to fulfil their international obligations. 

There was grave concern for the situation in Darfur, and these had become all the more acute in recent weeks and months. The Government of Georgia was commended for establishing a commission to develop a national strategy to support social integration of the displaced, among other things. Mr. Kalin would return to Turkey later in the year in the context of the launch of an action plan for durable solutions. He had also been actively engaged in mainstreaming the human rights of internally displaced persons throughout the United Nations. The opportunity presented by humanitarian reform to participate in policy debates on framing assistance and protection in a rights-based approach had been seized. The past year had been successful for the mandate, despite the continued displacement for several millions of people. Member States were thanked for their support and willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue. 

Statements by Concerned Countries

JOSEPH U. AYALOGU (Nigeria), speaking as a concerned country on the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Nigeria commended Philip Alston for his exhaustive report. He was given wide access to all officials and institutions in Nigeria as he had rightly indicated in the appendix of his report. The fact that the Special Rapporteur was given wide and unrestricted access to all institutions and persons was a testimony to the transparency and commitment to due process by the Nigerian Government. Since the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Nigeria, the Federal Government had responded in a concerted fashion to the issues under question, i.e. extrajudicial killings, and had decided to take such measures as would obviate the need for future concern or apprehension regarding the administration of justice in Nigeria. 

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), speaking as a concerned country, said the Government of Sri Lanka had a consistent policy of cooperation and open and constructive engagement with the special procedures mechanism by extending regular invitations to such mechanisms to undertake missions in the country, even during the years of conflict. The initiative of the Head of State to invite an international independent body of eminent persons to act as observers on investigations into recent allegations was in fact an additional voluntary mechanism to existing cooperation with special procedure mechanisms. The Government did so out of its commitment to the protection of human rights while combating terrorism and the Government’s desire to place itself beyond reproach regarding such concerns. It should also be recalled that as far back as 2003, at the Tokyo donor conference, a comprehensive programme for the promotion and protection of human rights was incorporated into the peace process. However, the LTTE had declined to participate in the Tokyo conference and as a result it had not been possible to implement the joint programme, which would have required the LTTE to cease all recruitment of child soldiers. 

The visit by Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to Sri Lanka in 2005 had taken place in the background of increasing violence by the LTTE. The first sign that the LTTE was preparing to resume hostilities came with the shocking assassination of the country’s Foreign Minister, a moderate Tamil intellectual. With regard to the comment made by the Special Rapproteur on legitimacy, Sri Lanka, was a democracy since independence, and the legitimacy of the Government was derived from the people who caste their votes freely at regular elections. 

JADRANKA KALMETA (Bosnia and Herzegovina), speaking as a concerned country, said the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina had fully cooperated with the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, who had made a comprehensive report on his visit, which gave quite an objective picture of internally displaced persons conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim of reducing the level of displacement in the country were undertaken in close cooperation with UNHCR’s office in the country. The Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees estimated that a half million people from Bosnia and Herzegovina with the status of refugees were still hosted by 40 countries in the world, and that the internally displaced in the country were about 125,000 people. The authorities of the country were carrying out activities aiming to reach solutions for all refugees with the view of voluntary return to their pre-war place of residence. In order to solve the remaining population displacement and to facilitate returns or the local integration of refugees and internally displaced persons, the authorities had made a great effort on the regional level to implement the conclusions and tasks of the Sarajevo Declaration. 

GORDAN MARKOTIC (Croatia), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, for his report on the human rights of internally displaced persons elaborated after his mission to Croatia from 6 to 8 June 2005. Croatia noted with pleasure the main conclusions and recommendation set out by Mr. Kalin in his report, and his main assessment that “the issues of widespread internal displacement caused by the armed conflicts on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, insofar as they affected Croatia, have in large measure been resolved.” From the time period encompassed in the report up to the present date, the Government had started to implement the recommendations as stated in his report. In September 2005, the Government adopted the Strategy of the Reform of the Judicial System and the Action Plan for its implementation aimed at strengthening the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. A strategic framework for development for the period 2006-2013, which was adopted by the Government in July 2006, would contribute to the acceleration of economic and environmental development, as well as to the further development of sustainable economic and employment opportunities, including the areas of special state concern.

SLOBODAN VUKCEVIC (Serbia), speaking as a concerned country, said that Serbia expressed its appreciation for the interest expressed by Walter Kalin, the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, for the situation of the displaced population in the Balkan region, and his mission to Serbia and Montenegro last year. Bearing in mind the protracted displacement situation and the number of displaced persons, both refugees and internally displaced persons in Serbia, this issue was high on the agenda of the Government. Serbia still provided shelter for 108,000 persons with refugee status as well as for 208,000 internally displaced persons from the Province of Kosovo and Metohija. The refugee situation dated back from early 1990s, while the problem of internal displacement existed from 1999. The number of internally displaced persons in Serbia, excluding Kosovo and Metohija, was 208,000. In addition to that, there were another 20,000 internally displaced persons in the Province of Kosovo. Unfortunately, in the period from 1999 up to present date, the number of internally displaced persons from Kosovo and Metohija had increased from 187,000 in 2000 to 208,000 in 2006. Further, the overall number of displaced persons who returned to Kosovo and Metohija, some 12,000 at the most, was extremely low. That was a question of particular concern bearing in mind that internal displacement of minority communities from the Province was taking place in spite of seven years of international presence in the Province. 

With regard to the return of displaced population to Kosovo and Metohija, it should be underlined that it was not a question of mere physical return. All necessary preconditions and guarantees for sustainable return should be created, such as full enjoyment of their basic human rights. Unfortunately, those basic conditions were far from being met. In view of the fact that displaced persons were citizens of Serbia, they enjoyed equal rights as all other citizens in the Republic. 

TEIMURAZ BAKRADZE, (Georgia), speaking as a concerned country, said the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, had conducted an official mission to Georgia with a view to finding durable, rights-based solutions for internally displaced persons there. Due to time-related reasons, his findings, which had already been published, were not fully reflected in the present statement. Georgia was deeply concerned about the most flagrant human rights violations that had taken place for years in the territory of Abkhazia, Gerogia, and the Tskhinavili region/South Ossetia, which were de facto out of the control of the Government of Georgia. A great number of spontaneously returned Georgian citizens had been permanently subjected to torture and other ill treatment, and were victims of other human rights violations. Georgia continued to insist on the establishment of a joint United Nations/OSCE human rights office, and the deployment of UNOMIG civilian police. Georgia stood ready to implement economic rehabilitation projects in both conflict zones, to facilitate both the process of peaceful settlement of the conflicts, and the return of the internally displaced persons and refugees. 

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, for his report on the human rights of internally displaced persons, and praised his recommendations following his visit to Nepal last year. Nepal had established a new peace process and important improvements had taken place in the area of the promotion of human rights and the creation of an inclusive democracy. These also touched on the question of internally displaced persons, a question that was closely linked to the armed conflict. Internally displaced persons had left their rural areas and moved to urban centres. The Government was committed to addressing this question in a comprehensive and sustainable manner to guarantee the safe and sustainable return. In that respect, Nepal had set up a Home Affairs Office to implement various programmes at the national level, including rehabilitation activities aimed at facilitating the return of internally displaced persons to their places or origin, the provision of vocational training, loft loans, scholarships and allowances. 

ABDUL MONEIM OSMAN (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, said Sudan commended the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons for its clarity. The return of displaced persons from Southern Sudan had been purely thanks to governmental efforts. The international community did not live up to its commitments in helping the Government in its efforts. The State had spent millions of dollars to facilitate the return of the displaced persons to their homes. The presence to the Government security agents had prevented the commission of crimes against women and the recruitment of children in armed conflicts. The return of the displaced persons had been guaranteed with the Government’s efforts to protect them from any violation of their rights during and after the return. The Government had also protected the people from thefts of their animals and properties. 

The Government of Sudan had continued to implement the peace agreement signed in Abuja with the armed groups. However, the armed groups had continued to violate the agreements by threatening the security of workers engaged in humanitarian assistance. The members of the armed groups also continued to violate the human rights of the civilian population. Violence was being perpetrated against women and girls. The Government was making all efforts to protect the population from crimes committed by the armed groups that refused to abide by the peace agreements signed in Abuja, Nigeria.

Interactive Dialogue

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions was thanked for his report. The Ambassador of Nigeria had given a comprehensive response to this. The people and Government of Sri Lanka had faced daunting challenges in the recent past, including the tsunami and the tasks of recovery and reconstruction, which latter were still unfinished. The fury of civil unrest had not spared them, and it was in this context that the Government of Sri Lanka had invited four Rapporteurs and cooperated with them. It had kept the torch of democracy burning, and required the support of the international community. The pressure on the Sri Lankan Government should not legitimise impunity for terrorism. The decision to appoint an international body to investigate allegations of human rights violations was commended. The Government’s desire to take human rights into account should be recognised, as Sri Lanka needed support and understanding. 

ZHOU JIAN (China) said that the fact that the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, had visited Sri Lanka at the request of the Government, clearly expressed the goodwill of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was committed to the full realization of human rights, and was deeply involved at the national level to carry out its international commitments. The international community together with the Council should support and cooperate with the Government, and foster a constructive dialogue.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said that the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions recognized the open and transparent policy of Guatemala. The Government, in its efforts to fight impunity, always upheld the administration of justice. The Government had always been respectful of its duties and was making efforts to promote the rule of law. Guatemala would continue to collaborate with the Special Reporter on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. 

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) said the issue of internally displaced persons and the protection of their human rights was of special concern to Azerbaijan, which hosted one of the largest populations of internally displaced persons in the world. The situation of internally displaced persons was an area in which United Nations agencies had to strengthen cooperation in order to cover the gaps in the internal response, which was a failure of the action of the international community. The new cluster approach was a step forward in the efforts of the humanitarian community to cover internal displacement. The efforts of the Special Representative to further mainstream internally displaced persons into United Nations policies and programmes were applauded. What was the difference between the displacement caused by internal conflicts and that caused by conflict among States, and should these be treated differently, the speaker asked. 

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said on Sri Lanka, the statement had been followed carefully, and the views of the Ambassador of the country and the intention to remain engaged with human rights mechanisms on the ground was applauded. The conflict in Sri Lanka was complex and complicated. Society as a whole was destabilised, and it was a critical undertaking for any Government. The international community should support the Government and its people at this trying time, and work with all parties to the conflict to achieve the peace that had eluded Sri Lanka for so long. 

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina would continue to support the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, particularly on the issue of transparency in the administration of justice. With regard to homosexuality, Argentina was concerned that the Special Rapproteur should further deal with the issue in his future report. 

FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran) thanked the work done with all the Special Rapporteurs and referred in particular to the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Mr. Alston. Iran had issued a standing invitation to all Special Procedures, and that invitation was still valid. Nevertheless, setting up the appropriate timetable for the Special Rapporteur to visit the country was a two-way process and it required time. Iran considered the Special Rapporteur’s report to be not balanced and said that it was a result of what needed correction within the human rights system.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, had made significant efforts to strengthen the system, including focusing on the need for improved follow-up. The Council should take up situations where countries did not respond to mandate-holders, and Mr. Alston should make his suggestions in putting this into effect. The situation in Sri Lanka was grave, and Mr. Alston’s views on this should be conveyed further. Any suggestions and recommendations on improving access of humanitarian organizations in all regions of the Sudan would be appreciated. 

JEAN DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the report on Sri Lanka showed that a cease-fire agreement was not a guarantee of stability. The report suggested a strengthening of the monitoring to ensure better observation of human rights. If the cease-fire was not respected, would Mr. Alston suggest a new mechanism for the observation of human rights, the speaker asked, and how would this be set up. 

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) referring to the report of Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that the African Group had contested the wrong diplomatic channels followed with regard to the situation of his country. There had also been efforts to influence the outcome of the referendum held in Algeria. There had been press releases by the Special Rapporgteur concerning the situation in Algeria, including releases addressed to the media. A similar illegal approach of the Special Rapporteur had also been mentioned by the speaker from Pakistan with regard to Sri Lanka. 

ROBYN MUDIE (Australia) thanked Mr. Alston for his report on Sri Lanka with reference to arbitrary executions and current violations of human rights in the country. Australia supported the creation of an international human rights monitoring mechanism in Sri Lanka, and asked the Special Rapporteur on the best way for the international community to support current efforts at the national level to reach a meaningful dialogue.

KIRSTI POHJANKUKKA (Finland) said the expression of deep concern on juvenile executions in Iran was shared. The Government of Zimbabwe should respond urgently to the humanitarian needs of the thousands who had been displaced, and could Mr. Kalin provide an update on the situation and the efforts of the Government to respond to their needs. 

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said on the question of internally-displaced persons and the visit of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons to Georgia, a number of the provisions in the document were accurate, in particular the need for political will and to implement the agreements that had been reached. The recommendations on the need for a swift conclusion to a final document on non-renewal of the conflict were also agreed with, but it was unjustified to blame the Abkhaz side for the responsibility for non-return to the region. A number of internally displaced persons and refugees had already returned, and problems were due to the refusal of Georgia to register them. 

ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) thanked Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, for his report and evaluation of the death penalty and the lack of transparency involved. Specifically, there was lack of transparency in the number of executions and the nature of the offenses for which the victims were executed. Lack of transparency led to gross violations of human rights. Norway expressed deep concern about the situation related to people being killed because of their sexual orientation. Norway also highly commended the report of Mr. Kalin in relation to the mainstreaming of the human rights of internally displaced persons, and the promotion of the Guiding Principles.

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia) commended the efforts of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons. Armenia shared the view that the international community should also be responsible for the implementation of the rights and the return of those persons. 
GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said the serious reaction of the Government of Sri Lanka on the latest developments and what had actually happened and their response had been very useful, and would allow for a correct response. It was a country where there was long-standing conflict, and in such a situation, abuses and violations often took place more frequently than elsewhere. The efforts of the Government to uphold human rights were sympathised with, and all should support the peace process in whatever way possible and support the Government in its endeavours. How did the Special Rapporteur coordinate with other relevant mandate holders in making observations on the replies given by Governments, the speaker asked. 

ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) thanked the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, for his report and the work he had been doing so far. The number of his activities was very impressive, and it was very interesting that he had taken different approaches to Governments, and his criteria for undertaking a mission or dialogue should be explained, as should be his experience of the most fruitful ways of engaging Governments. Internal displacement resulting from natural disasters was a new challenge, Mr. Kalin had said, and this statement required clarification, and whether the Guiding Principles were sufficient for dealing with the situation in the context of natural disasters. 

JUNEVER MAHILUM WEST (Philippines) thanked the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons for their reports, and referred in particular to the visit of Mr. Alston to Sri Lanka. The Philippines was struck by the daunting task of the Government of Sri Lanka, and stated that it had repeatedly showed goodwill, and had invited several stakeholders to visit the country. The Philippines appealed to the international community to support the process in Sri Lanka.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) said that States should comply with international humanitarian laws as highlighted by the Special Rapporteur Mr. Alston. The Council should be able to seek solutions to the situation in Sri Lanka and support the efforts of the Government in establishing peace.

SEJDI QERIMAJ (Albania) said during the 1990s, the Balkan region was the scene of bloody conflicts which caused millions of refugees and internally displaced persons, however, this was a global problem, and the visit of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, to the region was appreciated, as was his report and suggestions. The Government of Albania supported the return of all internally displaced persons, particularly to Kosovo, and encouraged all authorities to extend their efforts to solve this human drama. 

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said with regards to the presentation of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, at the time of the 2005 Commission, the protection of internally displaced persons in the context of natural disasters had been discussed with him. The issue of the tsunami had been much debated within the United Nations. The local response was the most critical in the first 24 hours of any disaster, and Mr. Kalin’s views in this regard should be elaborated. Another issue Sri Lanka was grappling with was the issue of registration of humanitarian workers in certain areas, and Mr. Kalin should suggest acceptable ways for this to be done. International interventions were becoming more costly, due to security costs, and Mr. Kalin should give his views on this issue. On Sri Lanka’s consistent policy of unhindered humanitarian access, this had continued, even in the areas where conflict reigned, and Sri Lanka was a unique example of a Member State which had consistently provided funds for projects in areas which were under control of insurgent groups. International humanitarian assistance went directly to the budgets of organizations working with internally displaced persons. 

RUHSHAN FERNANDO, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development and FORUM-ASIA, shared the concerned expressed by Mr. Alston and concurred with his recommendation regarding the need for an international human rights monitoring mission to Sri Lanka to address the rising number of extrajudicial killings and the grave human rights and humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka. The Forum also expressed deepest concern about the ongoing extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. Most of the victims had been peasant leaders of indigenous peoples. In the case of Chechnya, civilians continued to suffer egregious abuses, including summary executions, forced disappearances, illegal arrests, detention and torture.

FABIO BURRAFATO, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, in a joint statement with Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peoples (MRAP) and Europe-Third World Centre, said that Turkey pretended that Kurds were considered as equal citizens. However, in practice, there was a contradictory picture. The most underdeveloped region of Turkey was the region where Kurds lived. That region was deprived of any economic undertakings that could benefit the people. The Turkish security forces were very quick in finding criminals, however, the Government had not shown the same readiness in the cases of Kurds killed by unknown state agents who continued to kill.

MARIETTE GRANGE, of Human Rights Watch, said the attention drawn to the almost 2 million internally displaced persons in Darfur was gratefully received, as these lived in an appalling situation. There was also great concern for the further displacement of civilians in Darfur, in violation of the Darfur Peace Agreement. Against this deteriorating situation and given the urgent need for a United Nations force, what steps did the Special Rapporteur believe the Human Rights Council and its members should take to protect Sudan’s internally displaced persons? Colombia had the second-largest internal displacement crisis, and therefore the efforts of Colombia to live up to its commitments should be explained. The killing of lesbians and gays was a fundamental negation of all that human rights norms stood for, and all special procedures should take note of this and incorporate it into their work. 

CHANDRA PINNAGODA, of International Buddhist Foundation, said under international law, accountability, even for crimes committed by terrorists, tended to be attributed to States. International law tended to create advantages to terrorists to perpetrate crimes. Unequivocal condemnation of crime was a mockery to terrorists, who had no concern for human rights. The Human Rights Council should deliberate on the global counter-terrorism strategy recently adopted by the General Assembly. The international community should ensure that not a single terrorist was allowed to win. The Human Rights Council should take concrete measures to eradicate terrorism by disarming all terrorists and protecting all humans by peaceful means. 

JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, commended the report of Mr. Alston, particularly with reference to having affirmed in strong terms the condemnation of the killing of lesbians and gays. A Member State had stated earlier during the discussions that the killings of people on account of their sexual and gender orientation was “appropriate and acceptable.” Whenever a State was involved in such serious violations, it demanded swift condemnation. The Network requested further information from the Special Rapporteur concerning his reference to the execution of people in Iran based on their sexual orientation, an issue on which he had not yet received information from the Government of Iran.

BUDI TJAHJONO, of Pax Romana, said a number of people in Sri Lanka had been displaced; many of them went to India while others went into other areas of the country. Those persons who were displaced were victims of violence from various actors.