Source: – HYPERLINK http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/ABB070937311949AC125729E005AC7A2?OpenDocument http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/ABB070937311949AC125729E005AC7A2?OpenDocument
Date: March 14, 2007

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DEBATE WITH HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
High Commissioner Presents Annual Report
14 March 2007
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive debate with Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who presented her annual report, which gave an overview of the activities of her Office, and raised several essential aspects of the protection of human rights, including support that the Office had given to the Council both at the level of institutional mechanisms and that of substantive activities. The report also stressed the priority areas which inspired the projects of the Office, both from the point of view of thematic expertise, and efforts in favour of rights holders. 

Among issues raised in response by delegations was that of reform of the Special Procedures, which, delegates said, should continue, without being an open-ended process. It was also suggested that the High Commissioner should continue to strengthen the work of the Special Procedures. Another of the main challenges for the Council was to ensure substantive follow-up on the implementation of its decisions and resolutions; the Council needed to develop modalities for effective implementation of its decisions. A further issue of concern for many delegates was that of the right to development. It was essential to reach consensus on that issue by mainstreaming the right to development and complementing national efforts by enhanced international cooperation. 

Presenting her report, Ms. Arbour said one of the litmus tests of the progress made in the Council lay without doubt in the functioning of the Universal Periodic Review, a process by which all countries would be evaluated on a regular basis on their performance and record on human rights. In analysing each situation impartially and objectively, the Universal Periodic Review should also answer criticism of selectivity. Throughout the process, transparency and open-mindedness were absolutely essential on the side of the State under examination. 

Two essential themes guided the work of the Office, Ms. Arbour said: these were economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the issue of equal rights for women. The fight against poverty was part of the issues to which great importance was given. Women were particularly vulnerable, not only to violations of the economic, social and cultural rights, but also to poverty, discrimination, and violence in all forms. 

Speaking in the interactive debate were the Representatives of Cuba, Mexico, China, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), India, Russian Federation, Finland, Bangladesh, Philippines, Brazil, Norway, Indonesia, Algeria (on behalf of the African Group), Peru, Morocco, Canada, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Argentina, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, France, Lebanon, Guatemala, Belgium, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Malaysia. 

The next meeting of the Human Rights Council will be on Thursday, 15 March at 9 a.m., when it is scheduled to conclude its discussion with the High Commissioner, after which it will hear the introduction of progress reports from its Working Groups on institution-building in the Council. 

Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The Council has before it the Annual Report of the High Commissioner (A/HRC/4/49), outlining the efforts undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to implement a number of its priorities. It elaborates on the support given to the continued work of the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms, both in its reform initiatives as well as its ongoing substantive work. In this context, it equally draws attention to the important work of the Special Procedures, and the support given to them by OHCHR. 

The report goes on to elaborate on the priority themes already identified in the Strategic Management Plan and their implementation. Specifically, it provides a detailed outline of continued efforts to strengthen country engagements, including but not limited to increased field presences. It equally highlights some key thematic expertise that continues to be prioritised and strengthened both in their normative form as well as in their implementation. The report also touches specifically on the issue of the death penalty, situating its sentencing and implementation within the international human rights legal framework, in an effort also to draw attention to the growing international trend towards its abolition. Finally, the report highlights the elaboration of new standard-setting instruments, and the Office’s engagement in supporting the work of their respective monitoring mechanisms.

The report concludes that OHCHR has made important advances in implementing its Strategic Management Plan. The Office supported the Human Rights Council in its transition year, while continuing its efforts to implement its identified priorities from the Plan of Action. Greater country engagement in all its aspects and strengthened thematic expertise in key areas have been highlighted as part of efforts to best address human rights challenges. 

A first addendum to the report describes the work of the Guatemala office of OHCHR in 2006, during which time it continued to observe the situation of human rights and to provide State institutions with advisory services and technical assistance geared towards implementation of the recommendations contained in its previous report. In a context marked by social tension, continuing violence and general insecurity, the Office carefully monitored the public security situation and its impact on human rights, the continuing challenges in efforts to combat impunity and strengthen the rule of law, the progress and difficulties in implementing the National Compensation Programme, the situation of the indigenous peoples and the climate of increasing political violence, as well as the situations of violence against women, of economic, social and cultural rights, and of human rights defenders. In its recommendations, OHCHR urges Guatemala to pursue implementation of the recommendations put forward in 2005, and presents a further 18 recommendations relating to the legislative framework for the protection of human rights, public security, the rule of law and efforts to combat impunity, the situation of the indigenous peoples, political rights, violence against women, economic, social and cultural rights, human rights defenders, public policy in the area of human rights and the technical cooperation and advisory services provided by its office in Guatemala.

A second addendum contains the report of the work of the OHCHR office in Uganda for 2006, focusing principally on the human rights situation in the conflict-affected areas of northern and northeastern Uganda. The report covers political and related human rights developments; the absence of civilian policing and its impact on human rights; the lack of access to justice and its impact on human rights; the situation with regard to land rights; and the issue of transitional justice. The High Commissioner makes a number of recommendations addressed to the national authorities and the Uganda Human Rights Commission, including: to ensure the integration of human rights and justice as key elements for sustainable peace; to strengthen the political commitment and judicial processes to investigate, prosecute and punish any violations of international human rights standards by all government agents; to urgently provide adequate security in return areas and deploy additional personnel and resources towards an effective civilian administration of justice in northern and north-eastern Uganda; to establish effective land dispute mechanisms capable of dealing with potential disputes arising from return; and to promote a national dialogue on various options for transitional justice.

Presentation of Report of High Commissioner for Human Rights

LOUISE ARBOUR, High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the report gave an overview of the activities of the Office, and raised several essential aspects of the protection of human rights. The report first dealt with the support that the Office had given to the Council both at the level of institutional mechanisms, and that of substantive activities. It also stressed the priority areas which inspired the projects of the Office, both from the point of view of thematic expertise, and efforts in favour of rights holders. 

One of the litmus tests of the progress made in the Council lay without doubt in the functioning of the Universal Periodic Review, a process which all countries would be evaluated on a regular basis on their performance and record on human rights. In analysing each situation impartially and objectively, the Universal Periodic Review should also answer criticism of selectivity. One of the innovative aspects would be to ensure that it was not just a pro-forma description of a situation, but should make a contribution towards highlighting shortcomings and difficulties, as well as setbacks in a country. It would also assess progress and suggest ways in which obstacles could be overcome. It should be followed by essential follow-up. Civil society, non-governmental organizations and national human rights bodies, as well as independent experts, should be involved in the process. 

Throughout the process, transparency and open-mindedness were absolutely essential on the side of the State under examination. This would allow the Council to achieve an optimised result, comparing best practice in each country, and help with the drafting of viable solutions. Individual and collective expertise provided by the Special Procedures was one of the most effective tools that the Council already had, and could only add to the impact and credibility of the Universal Periodic Review and the work of the Council. Synergy, fostered by the Special Procedures, was necessary to streamline procedures and optimise investment in time and resources. The independence and impartiality of the Special Procedures guaranteed that a large range of rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural, which affected all groups, were perpetually under consideration. 

With regards to the activities of the Office, Ms. Arbour said that commitments at national and regional levels were one of the main characteristics of the Strategic Management Plan. Agreement had been reached with the Governments of Bolivia and Panama. The opening of new regional bureaus in Central Asia, North Africa, and West Africa should take place shortly. There was also an account of operations in Uganda, Guatemala, and Nepal, which latter was also the subject of a special report, where despite progress, much remained to be done. These field presences increased capacity, not only to support Governments directly, but also to extend a helping hand to rights-holders, and to work to implement the work of the Human Rights Council. 

Two essential themes guided the work of the Office, Ms. Arbour said: these were economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the issue of equal rights for women. The fight against poverty was part of the issues to which great importance was given. Continuing efforts in this field aimed to show the intimate link between extreme poverty and human rights violations. Efforts unfortunately remained peripheral to global debates on policies and strategy development. Women were particularly vulnerable, not only to violations of the economic, social and cultural rights, but also to poverty, discrimination, and violence in all forms. 

Interactive Dialogue

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her statement, and expressed satisfaction at the work being done by Ms. Arbour’s Office. Cuba thanked the Office of the High Commissioner for its support on improving an equitable geographic representation among the staff of the Office. Cuba hoped it would be possible to resolve the matter by May, and counted on the High Commissioner for support. Cuba agreed with most of the report, but clarified that it had reservations. Cuba agreed with implementing a human rights dimension in training of personnel, but said agencies providing assistance should be directly involved in human rights activities, and the principle of consent was paramount. The High Commissioner’s presence in the field should have its own identity, and there should be clear delimitation of the work of each agency to avoid misunderstandings. Regarding paragraph 40, Cuba had doubts as to how a rule of law index could be worked out given the variety of systems and cultures in different countries. 

JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ ROBLEDO (Mexico) said that the report of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour marked some of the most important challenges the world was facing today. Mexico had a very positive view of the first year of the Council and had great confidence that the expectations for next year should be met. Mexico was convinced of the virtues of the human rights protection machinery. It took advantage of the bodies of the Human Rights Council, including the Special Procedures. Mexico requested that the High Commissioner continued to strengthen the work of the Special Procedures. 

Concerning institution building, the Universal Periodic Review was highlighted by Mexico. However, duplication with existing mechanisms should be avoided. The Council was par excellence the body everyone was aspiring to. A number of successes could be reached such as the rapid response unit providing support for crisis situations worldwide and a better coordination in the field among others. The unit on the rights of gender would be able to achieve important issues.

LI WEN (China) said that China in particular appreciated the efforts made in term of background documents and technical assistance. The world’s eyes were on the Council, and it was hoped that it would be different from the Commission. Many had pictured a wonderful future for the Council, in which it protected all, a place for dialogue and cooperation. This sent a positive message, but it was disappointing that some countries spent the high-level segment naming and shaming other countries, and this was evidence of politicisation and selectivity. China advocated dialogue and cooperation among countries. 

In order to promote dialogue, it was necessary for the Office to build up geographical balance, and to balance the composition of the staff to a further extent. The imbalance of the composition was inconsistent with the culture of diversity. The efforts made so far were appreciated, although staff from Latin American and Asian countries was still in a minority. It was hoped the Office would pay attention to diversity in terms of culture, diversity and legal background. To promote a human rights view of equality and diversity, it was essential to pay attention to human rights in all categories. The United Nations human rights system had not paid enough attention to the right to development, and it was hoped the Office would work in this direction.

MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union expressed sincere appreciation for the work of the Office of the High Commissioner. It welcomed the strengthening of capacities within the Office in 2006 and the role of the Office on peace missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Haiti. The European Union supported wider field presence, notably the recent agreement with Bolivia, as well as new offices and presences in Nepal, Guatemala and Uganda, and followed with interest the programme of new offices elsewhere in the world. 

The European Union was concerned about the human rights situation in Darfur, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Burma/Myanmar and asked how the Office intended to deal with these. Could the Office of the High Commissioner elaborate on activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Lebanon and Israel? Could the Office also elaborate on how the international community should work with the Government of Sri Lanka? Could it also explain the future collaboration and role of the High Commissioner’s Office in relation to the institutional framework of the Council? Clarification was requested on the technical support offered to non-governmental organizations regarding improving their involvement in the Council’s deliberations, and for the High Commissioner’s view on how to strengthen and encourage the trend towards abolition of the death penalty. 

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the OIC had hoped that the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would make specific references to the status of implementation of various resolutions and decisions of the Human Rights Council relating to the situation of human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. The report had a chapter on strengthening thematic and country specific Special Procedures expertise vis-à-vis various dimensions of human rights. The report, however, made no reference to contributions by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to combat the growing trend of Islamophobia. The OIC endorsed the proposal of its Secretary-General that there was a dire need to fill the judicial vacuum of deficiency in dealing with the question of respect for religions in the United Nations. 

This deficiency should be addressed by taking effective and legally binding measures for combating defamation of all religions and incitement to racial and religious violence. The OIC hoped that the panel of highly qualified experts would elaborate concrete recommendations on the means to bridge the gaps on combating defamation of religions and incitement to racial and religious violence. The Universal Periodic Review was still being discussed. A great amount of progress had already been made. 

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said as the Council came closer to the one-year deadline to complete the institution-building tasks, the successful conclusion of its work was anticipated. It had been a productive exercise. While a lot of work had already been done with regards to institution building, enormous challenges lay ahead in defining and operationalising the Council’s architecture. The process of review and rationalisation of the Special Procedures still remained to be seriously engaged with. The main objective and collective endeavour should be to take the process to its logical conclusion; this could not be an open-ended process, and the Council could not remain in transition forever. 

There were some areas where the Council had already incorporated practices which constituted an improvement over the Commission. One of the main challenges for the Council was to ensure substantive follow-up on the implementation of its decisions and resolutions: the Council needed to develop modalities for effective implementation of its decisions. On the other hand, the Council’s agenda and methods of work remained largely undefined and too flexible for comfort. 

MARINA KORUNOVA (Russian Federation) said Russia shared the idea that a main priority should be to support the consolidation of the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. The success of the United Nations and its institutions depended on the support provided by member countries. Russia called on the High Commissioner to base her judgments on the principle of impartiality and objectivity in mentioning reference to the human rights situation in individual countries in the report. Priority should be given to thematic issues. Russia agreed with the importance of cooperation between monitoring bodies and States, but the presence of an open invitation was not seen as a prerequisite. 

Russia noted that respect for minority rights was important, and non observance of this undermined political and social stability. Rights of minorities should be a central theme in the Office of the High Commissioner’s work. 

VESA HIMANEN (Finland) said that Finland fully supported the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. Finland strongly supported maintaining women’s human rights and gender issues on the agenda of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Finland shared the concern over the violence that women faced all over the world and the lack of access to justice by women. It was of crucial importance to ensure all aspects of women’s equal rights in practice. The issue of freedom of expression and the concerns of the High Commissioner about restrictions on civil society were frequently raised.

Women human rights defenders were more at risk with regard to certain forms of violence and restrictions and became more vulnerable to prejudice, exclusion and public repudiation by state forces and social actors. There had been human rights violations concerning women in Iran, Zimbabwe and Iraq. Furthermore, the question was raised whether the targeted actions by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding women’s rights would also include the protection of women human rights defenders and if so, what action first and foremost was needed at the country level to protect women human rights defenders from being vulnerable to violence. 

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said transparency was an issue of vital importance to any organization. Regular consultations and briefings by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could ensure transparency on its activities. There had been concerns expressed time and again about the human resources management of the Office, and geographical representation in the staff composition. Distribution of resources to the promotion of the whole range of human rights was another issue. The High Commissioner might like to look into the adequateness of resources to the priority areas, particularly on economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development. 

The realisation of the right to development assumed particular relevance in the context of poverty and marginalisation, and uneven distribution of the benefits of globalisation. It was essential to reach consensus in mainstreaming the right to development and complementing national efforts by enhanced international cooperation. At the end of the day, universal enjoyment of human rights could not be achieved if a large section of humankind suffered from poverty and under-development. The Council should have an appropriate role in the functioning of human rights machineries; it should have effective oversight over the instruments and methods that would be used for protection and promotion of human rights. 

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said the report gave a clear outline of the Office’s work and the details of its support for the Human Rights Council. On the Universal Periodic Review, the involvement of experts should be designated by governments, accounting properly for geographical representation. The Philippines welcomed recent initiatives to engage with developing countries on technical assistance and capacity building. On trafficking, the Philippines welcomed the High Commissioner’s initiatives, especially assessing the human rights impact of anti-trafficking interventions. Rights-based and gender-sensitive approaches in the field of anti-trafficking were important. A specific section in the report on the rights of migrants and their protection and promotion was necessary, as this issue deserved its own section. The main challenge regarding the right to development was the matter of how to operationalise this right. 

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that Brazil wanted to highlight the leading role that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, was playing in the institution building within the United Nations system. Brazil wanted to mention a few fundamental points. A strengthening of the cooperation between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and countries could be seen as well as an improvement in the fieldwork. A new Office had been opened in Guatemala. Any visit to Latin American countries was very appreciated. Latin America was still very much underrepresented in the United Nations and this challenge should be overcome. 

An emphasis was placed on the link between development and human rights. Brazil wanted to stress the work done by the thematic and country specific Special Procedures as portrayed in part three of the report, such as the right of indigenous people and economic, social and cultural rights. Brazil agreed with the report concerning part four about the death penalty. A timeframe should be set to abolish the death penalty throughout the world as well as other discriminations like racial, ethnic, religious and sexual discrimination and torture. 

WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said as highlighted in the statement during the high-level segment, Norway supported higher levels of engagement, and welcomed the important work of the Office in such countries as Nepal, Afghanistan and Uganda. The Office should assist States at all times with technical assistance and within a sufficient timeframe to ensure effectiveness. The engagement with civil society and with human rights defenders was appreciated, and suggestions should be given as to how this could be enhanced within the United Nations as a whole. 

On human rights and gender issues, how could the Office help the United Nations to strengthen the capacities of States to encompass broad anti-discrimination strategies and gender mainstreaming in general, Norway asked. 

HARKRISTUTI HARKRISNOWO (Indonesia) said Indonesia attached great importance to the report of the High Commissioner and the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the High Commissioner. Indonesia associated itself with the statement of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and asked about the non-implementation of certain decisions, requesting the complete fulfilment of all these. Clarification on the criteria for deployment of staff in a given country was sought. Human rights advisers to a number of countries had been proposed, and Indonesia asked whether this was at the request of and in consultation with the countries concerned? How would the resolutions be implemented regarding geographical distribution of the High Commissioner’s Office? 

On thematic expertise, Indonesia suggested an exchange of views between Louise Arbour and the Council on priorities, and mentioned the utility of the method by which the Council mandated the High Commissioner to certain activities. The Council should spearhead efforts to promote dialogue and understanding. It could support ways and means of bridging gaps in existing standards and on cooperation over religion and religious tolerance. There should be efforts for the eradication of the increasing tendency to Islamophobia. 

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group believed that it was a prerogative of the respective State to decide whether visits should be taking place there or not. In addition, Algeria believed that additional forms of discrimination other than those mentioned in the report should also be dealt with. The work programme of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should constantly be reviewed. 

Speaking on behalf of Algeria, poverty could not only be measured per capita and income as done in the report, the speaker said. It was not only material but also immaterial poverty that should be considered. The report stressed that highly qualified experts should be used for the Universal Periodic Review, although this has not as yet been agreed upon by the Council. The report mentioned as well United Nations peacekeeping missions to Iraq and to Sudan but it was not clear to the delegate of Algeria that they were actually taking place. Finally, an index of human rights was mentioned in the report, which Algeria considered an interesting idea. Algeria noted that the High Commissioner had established a rapid action unit. Algeria would have liked this unit to be sent to Palestine and Iraq as well. Algeria was aware of measures undertaken to implement access to water. Algeria supported the position of the Ambassador of the Philippines concerning the rights of migrants and the Ambassador of Brazil to have better regional representation. 

CARLOS ALBERTO CHOCANO BURGA (Peru) said the High Commissioner’s view with the setting-up of the system of protection and promotion of human rights with the fundamental process of the Universal Periodic Review would ensure a less politicised system with less of the faults of the previous Commission. The Universal Periodic Review should also work preventively in concert with the Council to halt human rights violations. The Special Procedures and the complaints system, along with the Universal Periodic Review, should be the most important elements of the system of protection of human rights, in which civil society should have a high level of participation. 

Special attention should be given to the Special Procedures, without undermining the valuable work that they had been doing, as they made it possible to direct efforts in States to the various areas which required increased attention. Cooperation was vital within the international human rights system, as it was only with this that substantive progress could be made in the field of increasing the access to rights for all. Combating poverty was one of the pillars of the human rights system, as extreme poverty and human rights violations were intrinsically linked. The Office should promote cooperation and coordination more efficiently with regional human rights bodies and organizations. 

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said Morocco appreciated the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Universal Periodic Review was an important innovation, and the Council needed human and financial resources to meet its responsibilities. Morocco hoped this would feature in the forthcoming General Assembly budget. National policies should aim to contribute effectively to human rights, and Morocco noted the plans to ensure necessary geographical balance in the composition of the Secretariat. Civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, all deserved the necessary attention. Truth and reconciliation and compensation schemes were in place in Morocco. Morocco would continue to be involved in the phenomenon of migration and the rights of migrants. Racism and discrimination issues were another priority for Morocco and it was hoped there would be resources for this as well as for human rights violations against women, human rights education, and work to protect violations in the Occupied Territories of Palestine. 

Response by the High Commissioner for Human Rights

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that she valued the dialogue and the level of interaction. Many of the issues raised were not addressed in her report and presentation. Tomorrow, another report would be circulated where many of the preoccupations would be addressed, like the question of geographical distribution and the right on development among others. She was conscious that many decisions rest within the Council and with the Member States. As High Commissioner for Human Rights, it was incumbent to articulate what were the international standards. Policies as the members saw them should be articulated. The positions advocated between existing and aspirational standards. She herself was a strong advocate for the right to development. Concerning geographical distribution, a reversal of trend was taking place. Members of the Council were aware that the key was to examine whether it was moving in the right direction and this was the case. 

Regarding the budget exercise, Ms. Arbour said that in order to comply with the framework, regular and extra budgetary resources were checked by the United Nations controller. Then, they were submitted to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, then to the Fifth Committee which formulated recommendations, and then they were approved. Women’s rights as human rights should be enhanced. In OHCHR, this was being dealt with already. Regarding country presences, the opening of a country Office was always done with the full consent of the hosting country. She hoped that as part of the one United Nations, the voice of human rights would remain strong. Human rights deserved to have a voice and residence of their own. 

Concerning the references made on migration, the High Commissioner said that there had been an impetus out of the summit in New York last September, which led to the global migration group. She hoped that the human rights component could be increased. Once again, she urged a broader ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers to be made. Regarding human rights in specific countries, especially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Myanmar, the Special Rapporteurs on these countries would deliver their reports. The High Commissioner’s Office wanted to engage in a dialogue with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and she hoped that in the foreseeable future, her Office could give assistance to all countries facing human rights problems. 

With regard to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Ms. Arbour said that there would be a report presented tomorrow concerning pregnant Palestine women who were giving birth at Israeli checkpoints. She reiterated her concern that the Palestine people were victims of widespread violations of human rights. 

Regarding the work in Lebanon, there would also be a report released tomorrow, presenting the result of the Commission of Inquiry. The regional office there examined the situation in the country. Reconstruction and recovery efforts were supervised with the assistance of the High Commissioner for Refugees. The office in the Occupied Palestine Territories was trying to strengthen links of the Special Rapporteurs with civil society organizations. 

Regarding the efforts to implement the human rights resolutions, the High Commissioner said that every effort was made and that every resolution was implemented fully and in due course. 

Interactive Dialogue

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said the transparency of the strategic management plan and the annual report and the parity given in the report was an example to be followed. Any mechanism that would assist States in avoiding politicisation and selectivity was to be supported. With regards to the system of Special Procedures, the important role that country mandates had played in various situations should be remembered. Extraordinary sessions and the Universal Periodic Review could not replace any other type of mandate. 

The report also highlighted the Office’s strengthened country engagement, and this was key to the important work of human rights integration played by the Office. Canada supported the commitment to ensure that gender equality was at the core of the work of the Office, with the mainstreaming of women’s human rights and gender equality issues in the work of the United Nations. The constructive role played by the Office in crisis situations was welcomed, particularly with respect to advancing the protection of civilians. 

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said Japan was encouraged by strengthening dialogue with countries and supported efforts to fortify regional entities. A General Assembly resolution referring to serious violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was adopted last December. The abduction issue was of international concern. How could the international community evaluate the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? The Rapporteur was never allowed direct access to that country and technical cooperation was not accepted. What could be done? Should collective efforts continue?

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said that Australia strongly supported the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, especially its country engagement. The references in the report to restrictions on civil society and freedom of expression, which were global problems that often required local solutions, were noted. Australia therefore recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights strengthened its efforts in all the seven regional offices. Regional Offices of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be very welcomed in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia drew the attention to the unconstitutional removal by the Fiji military of the government of Prime Minister Qarase in December 2006 and the subsequent human rights abuses, including attacks on freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary. 

Australia was also working together with other Pacific nations to provide a practical way for Fiji to regain its place as a democratic country with a homegrown respect for human rights and the rule of law. Australia would be grateful if the High Commissioner for Human Rights could inform whether there were any further steps taken by her Office to respond to the situation. Australia considered it essential that the Human Rights Council’s mechanisms developed during the formative year would give the Council the capacity to respond effectively to priority human rights issues and situations. Australia agreed with the High Commissioner that all the members of the council must work together to establish a strong, effective, responsive and transparent Council structure. 

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the report gave an overview of all the work carried out by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose autonomy should be maintained. The Universal Periodic Review and the review of the Special Procedures were two of the crucial aspects for the institutional consolidation of the Council. The assessment of the situation in Nepal was of great interest, and the analysis of the situation was fully shared. The Nepalese authorities should respond rapidly to the request of extending the mandate of the Office for the next two years in order to protect and promote human rights in the transitional phase of the politics of the country. 

The creation of the Women’s Rights Unit was welcomed, as it would study serious issues such as violence against women, a topic for which Switzerland had particular concern and on which it had a Plan of Action. Impunity for crimes committed against women, particularly in conflict regions was unfortunately a topical and extensive issue, and the High Commissioner was asked how she would work to combat this impunity, and whether she had concrete measures on how to better implement in practice Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. 

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the Argentine Government supported the general direction of the High Commissioner’s report. The report noted the fundamental nature of the expert component of Universal Periodic Review. The work of experts would be important for the preparation and drawing up of the review. Periodicity must be stressed, with a maximum of four years between a country’s review. Non-governmental organizations must participate at all stages of review. Only adoption of final results would be entirely a matter for governments. Results of the review should be geared towards action, with conclusions and recommendations that justified the high expectations of the General Assembly. Argentina hoped that Office would do all that was possible to ensure these conditions were met 

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdom would like to fully ally itself with the statements made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. In the report, the progress made in Nepal was highlighted. The United Kingdom asked to be updated about the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the work carried out in the Terai region. When would the negotiations be concluded in Nepal? Concerning violence against women, the United Kingdom hoped that those problems could be eradicated soon. 

The question was raised on how the work of the new gender unit should work together on the ground with the other bodies. The situation on the ground in Zimbabwe was deteriorating, and the United Kingdom wanted to know what the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was doing to improve the situation. 

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica) said it was good that the report addressed transitional justice and issues of development, as well as the principles of equality and non-discrimination, the protection of minorities and indigenous peoples. Particular attention should be paid to the statement by the Office with a view to restricting or reducing the use of the death penalty, with a view to its eventual abolition. The progress made in recent years to this effect was welcomed. The efforts undertaken by the Office to centralise activities and promote activities in the field were supported, as this strengthened and extended cooperation with national and regional offices. 

The protection and promotion of human rights in Latin America would be more visible with the new Latin American regional office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human rights education, as had been noted in the report, was extremely important in order to develop awareness of the universal human rights responsibilities, and the High Commissioner’s leadership and dynamism in her Office warranted the recognition and support of the Council and all its members. 

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France) thanked the High Commissioner for her report and said the use of the word “perfect” in relation to the establishment of the Council’s institutions was problematic given the requirement for haste. France requested clarification on the characteristics of the Universal Periodic Review and the Special Procedures. Which Special Procedures should the Council keep? With regard to women's rights, France welcomed the creation of a women's rights and gender unit within the OHCHR, which should be undertaken as a priority to consolidate activities in this field. France also paid tribute to the work on abolition of the death penalty and to the work of OHCHR offices in the field, especially in Nepal. Agreement on the notion that a child under 18 could not be considered a soldier had been another important advance. On multilingualism, France was delighted to hear the High Commissioner speaking in French, but much work remained to be done. Many communications were only received in English. Facilitators' reports had to be made available in all languages, he stressed. 

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon) observed that Lebanon had been mentioned as benefiting from the Rapid Response Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in terms of the setting up of a fact-finding mission, among others. Those very welcome activities of the High Commissioner had been taken because of the Israeli military operations which had led to the adoption of resolution S-2/L.1. The commission had been able to carry out its task. Thanks to the contribution of the OHCHR, the financial and material difficulties had been overcome and logistical and technical work had been carried out. Lebanon expressed its gratitude to the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the efficient contributions made. The report of the High Commissioner on Lebanon would be an opportunity for the country to provide more information about the resolution. 

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTÍNEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said the report covered the main actions undertaken in the context of the Strategic Management Plan introduced last year and the mandates and institution-building with regard to the Council. Regarding the main activities of the Office in Guatemala, in the context of the current situation, Guatemala recognized the insecure conditions and the difficulties in combating impunity. Efforts had been focused on combating crime, including organized crime, and towards improving the administration of justice, with the increase of budgetary allocations, although resources continued to be insufficient. 

Legislative changes had taken place, although some tasks remained. The recommendations received were in some part compatible with Guatemala’s own recommendations, including increasing the population’s security, combating impunity, and increasing the rule of law. Guatemala would continue to provide support to the Office so that it could continue to perform its functions in a framework of objective and impartial cooperation. 

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for strengthening field presences in the world and promoting improvement in specific situations. The presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Nepal had led to concrete tangible improvements and Nepal should continue to cooperate with OHCHR and make human rights an important aspect of the peace process. Belgium called on Nepal to extend the mandate of the field office there, and welcomed cooperation and extension of the mandate in Colombia. Activities to strengthen judicial bodies should be of great help to victims. It was important also to strengthen civil society and encourage functioning democracy and the rule of law. Violence in Iraq was a serious concern and ending violence and strengthening the judicial system there were imperative. Human rights also had to be a priority in the fight against terrorism. The signing of the Convention for the Protection of People against Forced Disappearance was an important step. Belgium also remarked on the importance of non-governmental organizations in contributing to the work of the Council.

ALICIA MARTIN GALLEGOS (Nicaragua) said that together with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), substantial progress could be made in Nicaragua. Poverty was one of the major obstacles to the application of human rights. Nicaragua considered that the Council had to ensure that the right to development, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, would be elaborated. To do that, shared solidarity between rich and poor countries was required. It was minorities who were most vulnerable to all types of human rights violations. Nicaragua urged OHCHR to help the Council build institutions to meet the needs of the Nicaraguan population. 

DON MACKAY (New Zealand) said the comprehensive and substantive review of States’ fulfilment of the human rights obligations under the Universal Periodic Review would hinge upon and could only be ensured through an effective preparatory process. The Council should utilize and would benefit from the involvement of independent, qualified and experienced experts in the Universal Periodic Review preparatory process. 

There was concern for the reported human rights violations by the Fiji military. New Zealand shared those concerns, and noted that serious abuses of human rights were continuing to be perpetrated in Fiji. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was encouraged to continue to assist the remaining legitimate Fiji Human Rights Commissioner, so she could continue to uphold human rights in Fiji. On the issue of women’s human rights and gender, the systematic integration and mainstreaming of women’s human rights and gender issues would allow the Office to play a more visible and catalytic role in promoting the equal protection of women’s rights across the world. 

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was encouraged by developments in the fight against racism. In that connection, what would be the approach to Korean citizens in Japan, who were constantly subjected to racism in many forms. He also wondered how the politicization of human rights could be tackled, notably regarding Japan’s hostility to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) said that Malaysia fully aligned itself with the points raised by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Malaysia noted the many and evolving challenges that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) was seeking to address, given the expectations following the establishment of the Council. That included important support by the Office for the ongoing work of Council on institution-building issues. Malaysia supported the positive elements contained in the High Commissioner’s strategic management plan, including the new recruitments for the Office. It was important to ensure that all had a sense of ownership in the work of the Office. 

The manner in which the Office sought to strengthen country engagement was very important – constructive engagement with Governments being fundamental for the effectiveness and success of that effort. Efforts of the OHCHR should not appear to be intrusive but based on genuine dialogue and collaboration. Malaysia also appreciated the focus given to the struggle against poverty, and welcomed the decision to make that issue the theme for this year’s International Human Rights Day. The work of the Council and OHCHR should impact positively on the lives of the millions who still subsisted in abject poverty or suffered from preventable diseases. Malaysia therefore also continued to place a high priority to the implementation of the right to development. 

Response by the High Commissioner

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding, said with regard to the functioning of the Rapid Response Unit, it was not dedicated exclusively to country-specific situations, but was a mechanism for responding in particular to the resolutions of the Council which required immediate operational deployment, such as mobilizing security. It was at the service of any measure that required a presence on the ground, and could support any initiative of the Council. Reference to missions in Iraq and Sudan had been made as a reference to the whole United Nations presence in the area. Periodic reports were issued covering the human rights situation of both countries, and in both countries there had been extensive documentation of the serious human rights situation. 

On the question of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the Government’s response to past incidents through the creation of a Commission of Inquiry and an international group of Experts, Ms. Arbour said that the Office had worked hard to support the Government’s efforts in that field and continued to be involved in the process. She continued to be concerned, however, that there was no robust and forward-looking human rights mechanism in Sri Lanka to investigate continuing human rights abuses such as abduction and displacement. OHCHR would like to establish a regional office in the country. 


With regard to Fiji, Ms. Arbour had previously made public her concerns, and continued to be extremely concerned as to the situation there. She had real concerns as to the independence and impartiality of the Fijian Human Rights Commission. She fully supported efforts that had been undertaken to review the status of the Commission in various regional and international forums. 

Regarding the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, Ms. Arbour said she had issued a statement on that issue yesterday. The level of violence that had been documented in response to a peaceful exercise of democratic opinion was of great concern. She was also concerned that all persons arrested in the course of those recent events should be given legal assistance and access to the courts, which latter should be given full power to adjudicate on what appeared to be a very excessive use of force.