COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON LEBANESE DETAINEES IN ISRAEL, REJECTS DRAFT ON CHECHNYA

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON LEBANESE DETAINEES

IN ISRAEL, REJECTS DRAFT ON CHECHNYA

Hears Addresses from National Human Rights Institutions

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 16 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights this morning took action on resolutions under its agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, and then heard addresses from a series of national human rights institutions on their efforts to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in their countries.

In a resolution on the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel, adopted  by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour, one against and 20 abstentions, the Commission called upon the Government of Israel to refrain from holding the detained Lebanese citizens incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes and to release them immediately.

A Representative of Lebanon said that according to the Red Cross, there were scores of detainees in Israeli prisons in contravention of international legality.  Some of the detainees were held without trial.  Others had finished their sentences but were not released.  The detainees were also subjected to torture. 

A Representative of Israel said that there were detainees but they were Israelis and they were held in Lebanon and elsewhere.  Voting in favour of the draft resolution was lending a hand to the distortion of reality, thus not contributing towards peace in the region.

A draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation was rejected by a roll-call vote of 21 against and 15 in favour, with 17 abstentions.  If the draft resolution had been adopted, the Commission would have, among other things, called upon the Government to urgently take all necessary steps to stop and prevent violations of human rights and to ensure that all alleged violations were investigated systematically, fully, promptly, and that they were sanctioned.

The Commission also adopted, without a vote, a resolution on cooperation with representatives of the United Nations human rights bodies, in which it condemned all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with representatives of human rights bodies.

At the beginning of the meeting, an extensive discussion was held on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba, but consideration of the draft was postponed for 24 hours after amendments were proposed by Costa Rica and Cuba.

The Commission also heard statements from a series of national human rights institutions on their efforts to promote and protect human rights in their countries.

Representatives of the following national human rights institutions took the floor: International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Presidential Commission on Human Rights of the Russian Federation, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia), European Coordinating Committee of National Institutions, Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, Ibero American Federation of Ombudsman, National Human Rights Commission (India), Commission fédérale contre le racisme (Switzerland), Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, The Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights, Danish Institute for Human Rights (Denmark), Defensoría del Pueblo (Venezuela), Islamic Human Rights Commission of Iran, Human Rights Commission (Uganda), National Commission on Human Rights (Mexico), Commission nationale des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales (Niger), Ombudsman of Argentina, Human Rights Commission (New Zealand), Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme (France), Human Rights Commission (Canada), National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms (Cameroon), Conseil consultatif des droits de l'homme (Morocco), Commission on Human Rights (Philippines), National Human Rights Commission (Greece), Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination (Sweden), Commission nationale des droits de l'homme (Togo), Office of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Azerbaijan, National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria,Human Rights Commission (Northern Ireland), South African Human Rights Commission, Standing Committee on Human Rights (Kenya), Human Rights Commission (Malawi), Commission Rwandaise des droits de l’homme, National Human Rights Commission (Nepal), Commission nationale consultative de promotion et de protection des droits de l’homme (Algeria), Comisionado Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (Honduras), and Comité supérieur des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales de Tunisie.

The Commission today is holding an extended meeting from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.  After hearing from national human rights institutions, the Commission continued to take action on draft resolutions on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, including the question f human rights in Cyprus, and on economic, social and cultural rights.

Consideration of a Draft Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Cuba

Consideration of L.2 on the situation of human rights in Cuba was postponed for 24 hours in accordance with rule 52 after amendments were proposed by Costa Rica and Cuba. 

A Representative of the United States said that the draft resolution simply called on the Cuban Government to adhere to last year's resolution.  There could be no reason for any country to vote against this resolution. The Cuban Government's lack of respect for the Commission was explicit in its rejection of the resolution and its repression and arrest of political activists.  The United States would have preferred to see a tougher resolution and called on the Commission to condemn the totalitarian Government of Cuba. 

A Representative of Algeria said that the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Cuba reflected the philosophy of confrontation between the Western countries and others.   In Europe, issues concerning Roma, migrants and other minorities were of concern.  Meanwhile, Latin American families should find a regional resolution to problems concerning them.   The Algerian delegation would vote against the draft resolution.

A Representative of Uruguay said that it had repeated several times that no State had the right to judge others.  The Commission had the responsibility and competency to look into all human rights violations in all countries.  This draft resolution sought to ensure that the Government of Cuba cooperated with the Commission and returned to a democratic order.  Ms. Chanet’s appointment was  welcome.  The draft resolution reflected the concern of the members of the Commission concerning the human rights situation in Cuba, including recent arrests and detentions.  The Commission had a responsibility to reaffirm the need for the Cuban Government to respect human rights. 

A Representative of Syria said that the scenario of resolutions submitted against some countries had become useless and even boring.  It was high time to stop such scenarios as they reflected the policy of double standards practised by some States.  While some countries submitted resolutions against developing States, they did not submit resolutions against Israel despite widely documented human rights violations by that State.  Cuba had the right to choose its way of life and the right to exercise its sovereignty without any interference. 

A Representative of Costa Rica said that his country, together with other countries of the region, had attempted to enter into a dialogue with Cuba in order to deal with some of the problems in that country.  His country had deep respect for the people of Cuba, and they had a common history.  Costa Rica would make a human appeal to the Government of Cuba on the issue of human rights.  His delegation proposed inserting a new operative paragraph calling upon the Government of Cuba to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial.  The amendment would also express Costa Rica's deep concern about the recent detention, summary prosecution and harsh sentencing of numerous members of the political opposition, and would urge the Government to release all those persons immediately.

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was seriously concerned about the human rights situation in Cuba which had deteriorated in the past weeks.  The arrests of dissidents for the peaceful expression of their political views were unacceptable.  The European Union therefore called for their immediate release.  These latest developments would affect the European Union’s relationship with Cuba.  The European Union’s objective was to promote a pluralistic democratic society to take form in Cuba as well as the general improvement of the living standards of the Cuban people.  The European Union supported the draft resolutions as well as its amendment L.74 proposed by Costa Rica. 

A Representative of Viet Nam said that once again a draft resolution was falsely describing the situation in Cuba.  Over the years Cuba had made great efforts towards achieving national development.  Due to the embargo, the people of Cuba continued to be subjected to a lot of suffering and hardship.  Viet Nam expressed its sympathy to Cuba and called for the lifting of the embargo so as to enable Cuba to concentrate its efforts on national development.  The Commission should foster dialogue and avoid polemics.  This draft resolution was biased and politically motivated.  For these reasons, Viet Nam would vote against the draft.

A Representative of Sudan said that the draft resolution was submitted because of political motivations.  It did not propose any practical solutions to any problems.  Cuba was one of the countries that was suffering from an economic blockade imposed by external forces.

A Representative of China said that year after year, the Commission had to face the situation of a draft resolution being brought up against Cuba, even though everyone knew it was a geopolitical product and had nothing to do with the human rights situation in Cuba.  The Cuban people, living in a small country, had made significant economic and political strides, not to mention Cuba’s contribution to human rights internationally.  The delegation of China saluted the Government of Cuba and the great people of Cuba.  Undoubtedly, Cuba had some problems domestically, however this was mostly due to political and economic pressure from a neighboring superpower.  Many of the co-sponsors did not even agree with this draft resolution, there was only one country that insisted on putting this draft before the Commission.  China would vote against this draft and encouraged other delegations to do the same.   

A Representative of Canada said his delegation would co-sponsor L.2 since it wanted to express its condemnation of summary executions, arrests and the harsh sentencing of 75 dissidents for non-violent activities.  Canada condemned the restrictions imposed on those arrested and the decision of the Cuban Government not to give greater transparency to the proceedings by not allowing the media to attend the trials.

A Representative of Libya regretted that some countries believed that the Commission should serve to condemn and indict countries of the south.  This draft resolution was based on political motivations and it did not have at heart the improvement of the situation in Cuba.  If that had been the case, the draft resolution would have aimed at lifting the repressive embargo on the people of Cuba.  In spite of the embargo, the people of Cuba had made great achievements in the field of human rights.  On this basis, Libya would vote against the draft resolution. 

A Representative of Cuba proposed to add the two following operative paragraphs: “urges the immediate ending of the unilateral and illegal embargo against Cuba imposed by the United States of America, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the human rights of the Cuban people, in particular their rights to food and health”, and “ requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to undertake an evaluation on the effects of the continuous terrorist acts carried out with impunity against the people of Cuba from the territory of the United States of America on the enjoyment of the human rights of the Cuban people, in particular on the enjoyment of their right to life”.

A Representative of Zimbabwe said his delegation rejected the draft resolution which was politically motivated. It was just to satisfy a certain individual country.

Action on Resolutions on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World

In a resolution on the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel (E/CN.4/2003/L.8), adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour, one against and 20 abstentions, the Commission called upon the Government of Israel to comply with the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols thereto; to refrain from holding the detained Lebanese citizens incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes and to release them immediately; affirmed the obligation of Israel to commit itself to allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit the detainees regularly, as well as allowing other international humanitarian organizations to do so and to verify their sanitary and humanitarian conditions and, in particular, the circumstances of their detention; called upon the Government of Israel to submit to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon all the maps of landmine fields laid throughout the civilian villages, fields and farms, causing casualties among civilians, including women and children, and obstructing the resumption of normal life in the area; and requested the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of the Government of Israel.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Gabon, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (1):United States.

Abstentions (20): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

A Representative of Syria said the draft resolution was clear proof of Israel's flagrant violation of human rights.  Israel had abducted Lebanese people and transferred them to Israel, keeping them as hostages, in total contravention of international norms.  Lebanese detainees were kept in horrible conditions and were used as a political pawn for negotiations.  To this day, Israel had also refused to provide all information of the locations of anti-personnel land mines, much to the detriment of the Lebanese people who were wounded daily.  The highest Israeli court had made it possible, through a ruling, for the Israeli authority to keep Lebanese hostages for purposes of bargaining. 

A Representative of Israel said that his country had already withdrawn its forces from Lebanon according to resolution 425 of the Security Council.  Israel did so on 24 May 2000.  Israel had handed over to UNIFIL maps of the landmines laid in southern Lebanon.  The confirmation of the transfer was signed by a senior officer of UNIFIL.  The Lebanese Government had the responsibility to maintain the minefields on the territories.  The Government had failed to do so for its own reasons.  It could not come to the Commission to ask for redress in the form of verbal condemnation of Israel.  The Government of Lebanon had never fulfilled its responsibility regarding the maintenance of security in southern Lebanon.  The resolution discussed detainees.  Yes, there were detainees but they were Israelis and they were held in Lebanon and elsewhere.  Voting in favour of the draft resolution was lending a hand to the distortion of reality thus not contributing towards peace in the region.

A Representative of Lebanon said that there was no doubt that the Commission was the most adequate forum to discuss issues relating to human rights.  The Commission must demonstrate that it could not remain silent in the face of human rights violations. The draft resolution was based on Israel’s violation of human rights, international law and the Geneva Conventions.  Concerning the number of detainees, the information presented by Israel was false and misleading.  According to the Red Cross, there were scores of detainees in Israeli prisons, in contravention of international legality.  Some of the detainees were held without trial.  Others had finished their sentences but were not released.  The detainees were also subjected to torture.  One of the Lebanese detainees, who was detained in 1986, had died recently.  Israel refused to release these prisoners since it wanted to use them as bargaining chips.  Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon only because of Lebanese resistance, not because Israel respected international law.  Israel left thousands of land mines and booby traps in southern Lebanon which had maimed and killed many civilians.  Lebanon had been asking for the maps of the mines since Israel’s withdrawal. However, the maps handed over by Israel covered only 65 per cent of the area that was under Israeli occupation. 

A Representative of the United States said this draft resolution was the fifth major resolution of the Commission aimed at Israel, a democratic country with an independent judiciary.  It was regrettable that many other countries in this room did not grant its citizens such rights.  As with the other anti-Israeli draft resolutions, the United States would call for a vote and would vote against the draft. 

A Representative of Australia said that the draft was unbalanced and it would not contribute to peace in the region.

A Representative of Canada said that it would abstain on L.8 since the draft resolution was unbalanced in its explanation of the regional context and would not contribute to peace.  It also failed to address the issue of Israeli soldiers detained in Lebanon.  Furthermore, the resolution contained references to landmines. While Canada was concerned about these landmines, it was of the view that the resolution was not the place to address this issue.

A Representative of Guatemala said that the draft had a great deal of humanitarian content and that efforts to put an end to human rights violations must be one of the priorities of the Commission.  However, the draft should have included reference to the end of suicide-bombings and the fair treatment of Israeli prisoners.  This would have made the draft more balanced.  Guatemala would abstain in the vote. 

A draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation (E/CN.4/2003/L.13) was rejected by a roll-call vote of 21 against and 15 in favour, with 17 abstentions.

If the draft resolution had been adopted, the Commission would have, among other things, welcomed the efforts by the Government of the Russian Federation to ensure normal conditions of life for the civilian population and to re-establish infrastructure; called upon the Government to urgently take all necessary steps to stop and prevent violations of human rights and to ensure that all alleged violations were investigated systematically, fully, promptly, and sanctioned; and to adopt all necessary measures to ensure free, unimpeded and secure access to Chechnya of international organizations, non-governmental organizations and the media.

The results were as follows:

In favour (15): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States.

Against (21): Algeria, Armenia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions(17): Argentina, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guatemala, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Thailand, and Uruguay.

A Representative of Cuba said that the draft resolution, which alleged violations of human rights in Chechnya, was unacceptable to his delegation.  The situation in Chechnya, which was part of the Russian Federation, should not be a subject of discussion nor should a resolution be drafted on it.  It should be considered within the integral part of the Russian Federation.

A Representative of China said that China opposed the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya.  A similar draft resolution was rejected by the Commission at its fifty-eighth session.  This draft resolution ignored the efforts made by Russia to promote and protect human rights in Chechnya and the outcome of the referendum held there recently.  China maintained that Chechnya was an integral part of the Russian Federation and that the resolution amounted to interference in the internal affairs of States under the pretext of human rights. For these reasons, China would vote against this draft resolution.

A Representative of India said the problems in Chechnya were a manifestation of international terrorism and the international community was now fully aware of the danger of terrorism.  Every State had the right to protect its Constitutional order and territorial integrity and to protect its citizens from terrorism.  The draft resolution failed to look at the situation in this light and India would therefore vote against it. 

A Representative of Syria said that a similar draft resolution had been submitted last year and the Commission had rejected it.  He wondered why the same draft was presented this year.  There had been efforts by the Russian Federation to improve the human rights situation in Chechnya.  The repeated presentation of the draft resolution had political motives.  The Commission, instead of dealing with a resolution that did not encourage the improvement of the situation, should help the Russian Federation in its efforts to solve the Chechen issue.  This draft resolution was  an interference in the internal affairs of that country.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said that Russia had never attempted to avoid discussing the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic.  During the referendum held on 23 March this year, the overwhelming majority of the participants supported the draft Constitution of the Chechen Republic.  Presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections would be held in accordance with this document.  The Russian Federation was determined to do everything possible to implement the will of the people of the Chechen Republic that was expressed so unambiguously during the referendum.   The draft resolution did not contribute to the search for a political solution in Chechnya.  Moreover, from a broader perspective, it hindered such a political settlement by sending the wrong signal to the small number of its opponents. For these reasons, the Russian Federation would vote against this draft.

A Representative of Libya said that as stated by several delegations, Libya regretted that once again a draft resolution had been submitted when its real objectives and intentions were clear.  The resolution would not help in any way the progress of human rights in Chechnya.  Libya instead welcomed the initiatives - political and legal - already undertaken by the Russian Federation to promote human rights in Chechnya. 

A Representative of the United States said his delegation would vote in favour of the draft resolution because of the deep concern over continuing human rights violations by Russian armed forces and security services in Chechnya.  The people of Chechnya had been subjected to unendurable suffering as a consequence of the war.  The draft resolution strongly condemned terrorist acts and assassinations of local officials in Chechnya, as well as the hostage-taking in a Moscow theater and the suicide truck bombing of Grozny’s main government building last year.  The United States condemned those acts in the strongest possible terms.  Those Chechen groups had demonstrable connections with international terrorism. The United States found encouragement in several promises made publicly by the senior Russian Government officials to alleviate the situation in Chechnya.

In a resolution on cooperation with representatives of the United Nations human rights bodies, (E/CN.4/2003/ L. 29), adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with representatives of human rights bodies: requested the representatives of the United Nations human rights bodies as well as treaty bodies monitoring the observance of human rights to continue to take urgent steps, in conformity with their mandates, to help prevent the occurrence of such intimidation and reprisals; and invited the Secretary-General to submit to the Commission at its sixtieth session a report containing a compilation and analysis of available information on alleged reprisals against the persons referred to.

Statements from National Human Rights Institutions

OMAR AZZIMAN, of International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said that national institutions had an important role in strengthening policies implemented by governments and non-governmental organizations in the field of human rights.  At present, international law was seriously questioned, which put human rights under threat.  National institutions had therefore increased their vigilance.  A positive trend was the increase in the number of national institutions around the world. Their conformity with the Paris Principles was monitored by an Accreditation Committee.  Regional meetings of national institutions were held on a regular basis.  The report provided information on the activities of national institutions and violations of human rights.  National institutions were mediators between civil society and governments. 

E. PAMFILOVA, of Presidential Commission on Human Rights of the Russian Federation, said that international law was collapsing in favor of the law of the strongest.  The United Nations had a responsibility to prevent this trend in the interest of the protection and promotion of human rights.  It was

unacceptable to forcibly impose democracy without taking into account national features.  The countries that considered themselves the cradle of democracy were giving themselves a bad name by repressing the right to free expression in their own countries.  In Russia, there was a short history of human rights legislation and implementation.   The role of the Presidential Commission was to assist and protect citizens and their human rights.  If authorities were legitimate and democratically elected, the Presidential Commission would work with the Government to help implement a respect for human rights.  The Presidential Commission constantly brought the most important human rights issues such as Chechnya, refugees and freedom of speech to the attention of the President.  The human rights system required a constant, yet delicate approach.  This was particularly true in ethnically diverse countries such as the Russian Federation

SEV OZDOWSKI, of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - Australia), said the Commission had played an important role in redressing disability discrimination and the promotion of community harmony and educational programmes. The international community must address the threat to the foundation of human rights.  It should be acknowledged that there was a need to redouble efforts and review mechanisms to address human rights violations. There was also a need for a strong focus on human rights education.

JOËL THORAVAL, of European Coordinating Committee of National Institutions, said the European Coordination Committee had held its fourth regional meeting in Dublin on 16 November 2002.  At this occasion, European national institutions had adopted their internal regulations and voted in members of the European Committee, namely national institutions of Denmark, France, Greece and Sweden.  The European National Institutions had also adopted a recommendation aiming to expand the mandate of the European Commission on racism and intolerance to include homophobia based on sexual orientation.  In the context of the second round table with the European Council, the European National Institutions had adopted three recommendations on their role in human rights and conflict-resolution; on the human rights of asylum seekers; and on cooperation between national human rights institutions and the Council of Europe.  In conclusion, the importance of the debate on the reform of the European Court on human rights and the effectiveness of the European human rights system was stressed. 

KIEREN FITZPATRICK, of Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, said there had been an increase in the number of national institutions in the Asia Pacific region and membership was expected to increase further.  National institutions made important contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia Pacific region.  Institutions not established according to the Paris Principle could be associated with the Forum but only as candidates. The first objective of the Forum was to improve the effectiveness of existing institutions and to increase capacity building. The second objective was to provide assistance to Governments to establish human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles. The third objective was to provide regional human rights cooperation.

EDUARDO RENE MONDINO, of Ibero American Federation of Ombudsman, said that on 25 February the FIO had condemned in unmistakable terms every and all unilateral acts of war taken beyond the resolutions of the United Nations, whenever and whomever might commit them.  The United Nations was called upon, as well as the Commission, to do everything in their hands to encourage the adoption of decisions to ensure international peace and respect for all the human rights of those involved in this situation with special regard to the most vulnerable.  On another issue, he said that the financial world had left aside the domestic effects that were hard to solve.  According to recent data by the International Development Bank, in Latin America 214 million poor persons were living on less than two dollars a day, while 88 million out of them were living on the verge of poverty.  Civil and political rights could not develop in a world that did not pay adequate attention to economic and social rights.  This was no longer an international community for people’s peace, development and human rights.  The world needed a fairer distribution of the fruits of globalization.  There was an urgent need to fill places of negotiation to restore the credibility of peace structures, reinstalling humankind in the center of human rights. 

A.S. ANAND, of National Human Rights Commission (India), said that his institution had continued to interact closely and beneficially with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other national institutions, both at the regional and the global levels, in addition to pursuing its fundamental responsibilities within India itself.  At the national level, it had hosted and assumed the chair of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Forum, held in New Delhi between 11 and 13 November 2002.  At the global level, the Commission had served as a member of the International Coordination Committee of national institutions from 1994 to 2002 and as its Chair for a number of those years. 

Everywhere the pervasive threat of terrorism had cast a pall on efforts to promote and protect human rights, for terrorism was deeply hostile to human rights, including the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life.  With the sound of gun fire and the cries of the innocent victims of violence ringing in the ears, he felt it appropriate to conclude these comments with the words of advice and caution of Mahtama Gandhi who wisely observed: "Peace will not come out of a clash of arms, but out of justice lived and done".

BOËL SAMBUC, of Commission fédérale contre le racisme (Switzerland), said human rights defense and the fight against racism were closely linked and must be at the heart of the activities of States, both nationally and internationally.  Every human right needed to be examined in its connection to racism.  Switzerland did not formally have a national human rights institution, however in the eight years of its existence, the Commission Federale had engaged in human rights questions.  It was important, even in democratic countries, that national institutions lived up to their challenges.  In Switzerland, there was still institutional racism, which took the form of prejudice against travelers, police brutality and the exploitation of foreign and vulnerable women.  The Parliament had now undertaken many legislative steps in order to combat racism.  However, a civil law against racism was needed.  The Commission Federale condemned draft laws on Swiss citizens living with non-Swiss citizens stressing that such laws only served to increase stigmatization.      

CHIAM HENG KENG, of Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, said that her Commission believed that economic, social and cultural rights were as important as civil and political rights.  Civil and political rights grasped most of the media’s headlines and much of the Commission’s work.  However, through its promotion and education programmes, the Commission had also managed to focus on economic, social and cultural rights.  The Commission also believed in being independent of the Government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) but remaining connected with them.  One of the ways to be connected with the Government and NGOs was through working cooperatively to promote and protect human rights.  To achieve that objective, the Commissi0n included both the Government and NGOs representatives on most of its committees.   To the Commission, human rights were as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It also believed in taking actions on all complaints related to human rights as quickly as possible.

CLAUDIE BARRAT, of The Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights, said that the Independent Commission was the first national human rights institution in the Arab world.  President Arafat had established it in 1993 and it was independent in its legislation, finances, policy and operation.  It complied with the requirements of the Paris Principles and was now requesting full membership in the forums of national institutions.  One serious external challenge was the assault by Israeli forces on the occupied Palestinian territories, especially since September 2000.  Since then, Israeli forces and settlers had killed more than 2000 Palestinians.  The Independent Commission’s main office had been ransacked in April of last year.  As a consequence, some activities had to be postponed, and the restriction of movement had prevented the Independent Commission from attending international conferences.  However, as a result of its diligent professional activities for more than nine years, the Independent Commission had succeeded in consolidating its presence, independence and standing in Palestinian society. 

The Palestinian Authority was urged to abolish the security courts, to combat corruption, to establish a more transparent system, to achieve the separation of powers, to hold municipal, legislative and presidential elections, and should allow   Parliament to play a more effective role in monitoring the Executive branch.  

LONE LINDHOLT, of Danish Institute for Human Rights (Denmark), said that the aim of her institute was to be able to make a key contribution to ensuring the realization of human rights for everybody in society.  In 2002, the institute addressed a number of human rights issues in Danish society relating to the amendment and adoptions of various acts and regulations.  Many initiatives related to the most important fight against terror following 11 September, which at the same time had brought into a renewed focus the discussion on the protection of individual human rights versus societal needs.  One of the areas addressed was that principles of fair trial would have to apply also to naturalized citizens, just as freedom of expression could be endangered by tightening of the regulations concerning support for organizations engaging in humanitarian as well as terror activities.  The Institute further submitted that the right to privacy should be safeguarded not only in relation to registration of electronic communication in particular of persons under the terror legislation, but also with respect to general surveillance of cash machines and other similar installations.

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ, of Defensoría del Pueblo (Venezuela), said in Venezuela, with the approval of the Constitution in 1999, a process of change had begun.  An Office of the Ombudsman had been established, which was functionally and financially independent.

However, on 11 November of last year there had been disturbances near the Presidential Palace that had unfortunately resulted in 19 dead, and the result of that was an attempted coup d'état that in fact had been planned long in advance.  A de facto government had been declared, dissolving various government offices, including the Office of the Ombudsman.  There were massive violations of human rights and the rule of law, and various officials supporting the Government were tortured.  The Office of the Ombudsman was not immune to these events.  The international community was called on to speak out against such violations of human rights and the rule of law.

MAHYA SAFFARINIA, of Islamic Human Rights Commission of Iran, said that the Commission was being held at a special time during which citizens of the world community were showing their commitment and interest to the necessity of the observance of human rights in various forms because of Iraq’s crisis.  The world's citizens expected their own governments to respect universal values and principles of order based on justice.  Her institute was working in a country, which was going through a transitional period affecting economic, social and political development and naturally, this transitional period included unpredictable developments and various ups and downs.  The Iranian human rights institution was working in a country where youth made up two-thirds of the population.  They had exalted ideals and thus had special needs.  Last year, training courses on human rights were held in various provinces of the country according to the framework of a joint project with UNDP, and six more provincial courses would be held.

MARGARET SEKAGGYA, ofHuman Rights Commission (Uganda) said the Ugandan Commission had found from experience that such institutions could be even more useful for vulnerable citizens when vested with the mandate and power to provide remedies for victims of violations through quick, cheap and simple procedures.  National Commissions worked best if vested with sufficient legal mandates and powers.  The Ugandan Commission was concerned at a proposed law in Australia that would strip the highly effective Australian National Commission of many of its necessary functions and powers.  That would be unfortunate.

The Ugandan Commission had embarked on programmes intended to broaden its impact on Government policy and legislation.  Regional arrangements also were vital, and Uganda had participated in such arrangements.

    SALVADOR CAMPOS, of National Commission on Human Rights (Mexico) said that extreme poverty, great impunity, incomprehension, intolerance towards the different, as well as vices rooted in the performance of public action, were reasons why it was still not possible to enjoy fully the rights established within the Mexican legal framework.  The fight against discrimination was a priority in the work of the Commission.  In respect of migration and migrants, the Commission had been fighting violations committed against that vulnerable group.  The social and economic reasons for migration could not be set aside since they were the origin of that phenomenon, a present anguish that surpassed by far any focus on border control done under purely criminal and police criteria.  Migration flows were, without any doubt, the social phenomenon of the century, which manifested expressions such as the increase of criminal organizations dedicated to the illegal trafficking of people, where local corrupt authorities were involved.  The Commission further continued to condemn the human rights violations at the border between Mexico and the United States where hundreds of Mexicans were killed each year in their attempt to cross to the United States.

GARBA LOMPO, of Commission nationale des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales (Niger) said the international scene was difficult and volatile, characterized by diplomatic tension and the sound of cannons.  Armed conflict posed so many terrors for mankind, and so many problems for protecting human rights.  National institutions must mainstream conflict prevention into their activities, as peace was essential for the flourishing of human rights.

Guaranteeing human rights depended above all on national policies being implemented.  Rights contained in Constitutions had to be put into effect; it was important that human rights be Constitutionalized, since that gave them the power through which they could be imposed on all authorities.  But the rule of law was no good only on paper; it had to be upheld in practice.  The Niger National Commission had built its effectiveness based on its full independence and its authority as a national body established under law.

EDUARDO MONDINO, of Ombudsman of Argentina, said the crisis affecting the country was causing problems in many aspects of life; poverty rates had increased, and this impoverishment had resulted in family, social and youth crime that had affected the authority of the State to exercise force.  There had been cases of arbitrary conduct, abuses and torture by the police, and there had been an increasing number of prison inmates, and conditions in prison were becoming a source of concern.  Hunger was mounting, and children were being forced to work or were being abandoned to impoverishment, theft, and prostitution.

Argentina needed more than ever to safeguard basic human rights for the most vulnerable, and to reconstruct the social fabric based on respect and not on social inequalities.  Globalization, it was clear, was not only creating opportunities for growth but in a great deal of human misery, as Argentina had found.  Impoverishment and neglect of human rights, if not dealt with, could result in a worsening state of affairs and unforeseen consequences for Argentina.

ROSSLYN NOONAN, of Human Rights Commission (New Zealand), said that ordinary people in New Zealand had a real opportunity to challenge not only government policy and practice but also laws and regulations that they deemed to be discriminatory.  As public sector officials became more familiar with the significance of the new human rights provisions and confident of the Commission’s process, they were increasingly willing to engage with complainants and to seriously address the issues raised rather than simply defending the status quo.  In addition to the disputes resolution function for dealing with specific complaints, the Commission was also mandated to inquire into any matter that involved or might involve the infringement of human rights. Another important function of the Commission was to develop a national plan of action for the promotion and protection of human rights and to promote by research, education and discussion a better understanding of the human rights dimensions of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Joël THORAVAL, of Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme (France), said that national commissions under the banner of the Paris Principles worked in conditions of independence and transparency.  Terrorism was not a new challenge, and France had suffered from it terribly, but the events of 11 September 2001 had changed the ground.  France had shown great solidarity with the United States following the 11 September attacks, but remained convinced that human rights standards had to be respected in all efforts to combat terrorism.

It was important to have access to victims of human rights violations, and the French Commission had called for the strengthening of international mechanisms for protecting human rights, for support of the International Criminal Court, and for abolition of the death penalty.  The French Commission also fought domestically against such problems as racism and discrimination.  It remained committed to the universality and interrelatedness of all human rights.  And it supported solidarity with the poorest, whose rights needed special attention in a world dominated by noise, violence and hatred.

NELLY RUSS, of Human Rights Commission (Canada), said that national human rights institutions helped bridge the gap between human rights standards and human rights treaties on the ground.  That was why the participation of national human rights institutions in the Commission was so important.  Canadian disability groups reported to the Commission that they were witnessing a reversal in hard-won gains in the area of accessibility and accommodation.  This year, the Canadian Human Rights Commission received 800 signed complaints of discrimination and 44 per cent of them related to discrimination against persons with disabilities.  The key to changing attitudes was to look at disability not only from the perspective of health programmes or social support but as a human right.  This past year the Canadian Human Rights Commission also focused on the human rights of aboriginal peoples.

    Chemuta Divine BANDA, of National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms (Cameroon), said that the business of promoting and protecting human rights was seemingly the most challenging enterprise of the contemporary world.  The Government of Cameroon had demonstrated good will in supporting the operation of the Commission and welcoming the setting up, in Younde, of the sub-regional centre for human rights and democracy in Central Africa.  It was currently encouraging international cooperation with the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms towards the development of a human rights culture in the country.  The political will already demonstrated by the Government was backed through the empowerment of the Commission to enable it to face all violators and to provide satisfactory remedies to victims.  The endowment of the Commission with adequate material, financial and human resources required that all actors in the human rights struggle should lend their assistance to it. 

ABDELAZIZ BENZAKOUR, of Conseil consultatif des droits de l'homme(Morocco), said the Council for human rights had been created in 1990 and had just undergone a major reorganization and reform to enable it to take new steps for the promotion and protection for human rights.  This reform had been based on a global approach to human rights and the aim of improving cooperation with other national human rights institutions.  Steps had also been taken to implement steps recommended by the Commission.  In referring to the Paris Principles, he said the Council followed its principles in its independence, legislation and policies.  The mandate of the Council had also been expanded to include the examination of allegations of violations of human rights and the dissemination of a human rights culture.  The advisory capacity of the Council and its financial provisions had enabled it to increase its efficiency and to improve human rights activities in the field.  Furthermore, the most deserving national or international organizations on human rights would be given a human rights prize by the Council.  A court had been set up to deal with cases of abductions and kidnappings, including compensation to victims of such human rights violations.  

Purificacion Valera QUISUMBING, of Commission on Human Rights (Philippines), said that after 16 years the Commission was instituting reforms to prioritize economic, social and cultural rights and issues on good governance.  Its present challenges were poverty and protection of vulnerable sectors.  Insurgency and kidnapping-for-ransom gave rise to human rights violations attributable to both government agents and insurgent and lawless elements.  The Commission investigated all cases of violations, regardless of whether they were attributed to government or non-government parties. The Commission also persuaded the Government to adopt a human security approach in conflict-affected area.  In the social area, the Commission used a multi-pronged approach to promote and protect the rights of women, children and other vulnerable sectors.

NICHOLAS SITAROPOULOS, of National Human Rights Commission (Greece), said that his institute, along with other Euro-Mediterranean national human rights institutions, had stressed the need for the relevant European Union law and policy making to strictly adhere to the “commitment to freedom based on human rights, democratic institutions and the rule of law”, especially in current times when those universal principles were endangered.  The Commission, since its inception, had put the issue of immigration and asylum very top on its agenda, considering them as top priorities for Greece, especially in the context of the relevant large-scale developments in the Union.  The Commission had submitted to the Greek Government a large number of recommendations with a view to adopting a modern immigration and asylum law and policy.  The Commission reiterated its position that the European States, in designing a common policy and practice on immigration, should be inspired by the principles that immigration into a receiving State would enrich the economic, social and cultural life of that country.  All refugee receiving States in Europe should strictly apply, through their legislation and practice, the humanitarian spirit of protection which the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees called for.

MARGARETA WADSTEIN, of Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination (Sweden), said the protected grounds on which she worked were race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin or religious belief.  She was the Ombudsman for all, not only immigrants and minorities, but naturally, it was mostly persons from minorities that turned to her.  As Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination, it was her task to give individuals advice on how to get their rights.  Apart from advice and action in individual cases, she could also take initiatives for general measures for the prevention of discrimination in all fields of society.  Information and education were also important, and thus the third field in which she was working, together with a staff of 25 persons.  Among general measures, it was worth mentioning supervision of how employers – private as well as public – fulfilled their obligations to take concrete measures to prevent individual ethnic and religious discrimination and to break down structural or institutional discrimination. 

KOMI GNONDOLI, of Commission nationale des droits de l'homme (Togo), said that this session of the Commission was taking place at a time when the world was facing  many crises, as was evidenced in the war in Iraq and other flashpoints around the world.  It was therefore important to reaffirm the principles of the UN Charter which called for a peaceful solution of conflicts and prohibited the indiscriminate use of force.  There was also a need to devise ways and means to strengthen international cooperation and effectively implement human rights.  The principle of universality of human rights meant that all human rights violations should be addressed without discrimination and with equal attention.  The Commission of Togo called for study missions to be carried out to assess the effectiveness of national commissions and for the continuation of the technical cooperation programme.

ELMIRA SULEYMANOVA, of Office of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Azerbaijan, said that as a new independent country, Azerbaijan was fully committed to the building of a sovereign, democratic and secular State based on the rule of law.  The Commissioner was independent and obeyed only the Constitution and laws of the Republic, examining complaints on mass and personal violations of human rights from citizens, foreigners and stateless persons, as well as legal entities.  The groundless territorial claims of Armenia towards Azerbaijan had turned to one of the most tragic conflicts.  Armenian military forces launched combat operations in Nagorny Karabakh and surrounding territories with the seizure of the town of Khojaly in February 1992, with the occupation of the town of Shusha in May 1992, and with the total occupation of seven districts of Azerbaijan.

    Armenian aggression and acts of genocide against Azerbaijanis had led to the occupation of some 20 per cent of the country’s territory, more than 50,000 people were wounded and left disabled and more than 18,000 were killed.  There were now about 1 million refugees and displaced persons in Azerbaijan.  Over 20,000 children were born in the refugee camps and they were deprived of all human rights from birth.

BUKHARI BELLO, of National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria, said the Commission had a broad mandate which included dealing with all matters relating to the promotion, protection and enforcement of human rights in accordance with the Nigerian Constitution and other international norms; monitoring and investigating all alleged cases of human rights violations; assisting victims of human rights violations; undertaking studies on all matters of human rights and assisting the Government in the formulation of appropriate policies; publishing periodic reports; and liaising and cooperating with local and international human rights mechanisms.  In furtherance of its mandate the Commission had also drawn up a strategic work plan for the years 2000 to 2004, by focusing on thematic issues such as women, the rights of the child, communal conflicts, law enforcement, extrajudicial killings, the right to food, basic health care, education and work, and law reforms and revisions.  Although the Commission operated as an independent body, without any interference whatsoever from the Government, the main problems of the Commission were in the area of funding.  Sometimes resources of the Commission were too meager to support the various activities and programmes it had planned. 

BRICE DICKSON, of the Human Rights Commission (Northern Ireland), said that the United Kingdom's Government had increased the funding available to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission but the funds received were not adequate to allow the Commission to carry out its functions fully and effectively.  Moreover, the Government had still not responded to the call the Commission made more than two years ago for an increase in the Commission’s power to make it fully compliant with the UN’s Paris Principles.  The Commission still did not have the power to compel the production of information from anyone.  The Commission continued to be concerned that the right to life was not being properly protected in Northern Ireland, both as regards measures to protect people who had received death threats and as regards investigations of unexplained deaths.  The Commission also remained dissatisfied with some aspects of the human rights training provided to new and existing police officers.  It was also noted that the Police Ombudsman had recorded a significant level of threats allegedly made by police officers against lawyers.

JODY KOLLAPEN, of the South African Human Rights Commission, said that a war of great proportions was playing itself out in Iraq.  Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of that war, there was no doubt that from a human rights perspective there was and continued to be human rights concerns and challenges that arose from the developments there.  It was not only appropriate but also necessary for human rights implications occasioned by the war in Iraq to enjoy the attention and deliberation of this important structure.  The manner in which that war had unfolded had ominous precedent setting implications for the international human rights machinery in particular and international human rights law in general.

Poverty and inequality still remained major challenges and the inclusion of socio-economic rights in the Constitution provided the Commission with a useful and creative tool to monitor government compliance with its human rights obligations.  The advancement of equality was a significant constitutional and human rights imperative and the necessary legislative framework had been put into place in the form of the Promotion of Equality and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.  The Commission was participating in national efforts to transform the education system by ensuring the centrality of human rights education in curriculum development.

O.K. MUTUNGI, of the Standing Committee on Human Rights (Kenya), said on 12 March 2003, the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs in the new Government had published the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Act 2002, thereby bringing into effect the law that sought to create the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights.  The National Assembly had since invited applications for qualified persons for nomination as commissioners to the new body.  The new body would replace the existing Standing Committee on Human Rights, and would have a broad mandate and functions that would include investigating any complaints of human rights violations; visiting and inspecting jails, prisons and placed of detention; informing and educating the public on human rights; and inculcating a human rights culture in the citizenry as well as recommending to parliament effective measures to promote human rights, including the provision of compensation to victims.  The Commission would come at a time when Kenyans were enjoying a new political dispensation, following the peaceful election in December.  The Commission would no doubt become a key element in the consolidation of democracy and in ensuring the observance and implementation of human rights by the new administration.  It was expected and hoped that the human rights situation in Kenya would improve following the strengthening of the human rights institutions. 

GEORGE KANYAMA PHIRI, of the Human Rights Commission (Malawi), said that the Malawi Human Rights Commission was mandated to promote and protect human rights in Malawi in the broadest sense possible and to investigate violations of human rights. This function included hearing complaints, investigating human rights violations, seeking amicable settlements, bringing matters to the attention of the courts and providing legal counseling among others.  During the period 2001-2002, the Commission had carried out and resolved a total of 156 investigations out of a total of 685 cases received from various complaints.  The Commission faced a number of challenges including lack of independence from the Government since the Government was responsible for funding operational and administrative costs; lack of cooperation from ministries and other public institutions; inadequate funding from the Government; lack of donors’ response; insufficient financial and mobility capacities for conducting investigations and human rights education; and limited accessibility by the general public to the Commission’s services since its offices were not centrally located in the capital.

SYLVIE KAYITESI ZAINABO, of theCommission Rwandaise des droits de l’homme, said that since its creation in 1999, her Commission had been pursuing its national mandate in the promotion and protection of human rights.  The mandate had also been strengthened through the new law of December 2002, which bestowed on the Commission more competence.  The new law had empowered the Commission with judicial power to be used throughout the territory; and could punish all persons who hampered the realization of the objectives of the Commission and the exercise of its powers. The Commission had the power, among other things, to carry out investigations upon receiving complaints from citizens on human rights violations and to visit places of detention and prisons. The measures taken to strengthen the powers of the Commission clearly demonstrated the Governement’s political will in its respect and promotion for human rights in the country, and to abide by the Paris Principles. The Rwandan Commission was independent and had to present its annual report to the three State powers.

NAYAN KHATRI, of the National Human Rights Commission (Nepal), said that the Commission would be three years old in about a month.  Its establishment was a culmination of many years of efforts to institutionalize the mechanism of protection and promotion of human rights in Nepal.  Established as an independent statutory body, it had been making efforts to ensure full enjoyment of human rights by all people in Nepal.  In keeping with the mandate, the Commission conducted investigations, rendered advisory services, and was engaged in promoting public awareness for the effective prevention of human rights violations.  The Commission was gradually strengthening its capacity to implement its mandate.  The Commission regarded that technical assistance and support activities from the Office of the High Commissioner were very important and enabled national human rights institutions to consolidate their institutional capabilities.

In recent months, events had taken a positive turn in Nepal.  The Maoists and the Government had declared a ceasefire and had already signed the code of conduct to be followed during the ceasefire.  A series of confidence-building efforts had been taken to prepare the ground for peace talks.  Important issues like the rehabilitation of internally displaced people, reparation to the victims of human rights violations and the question of impunity still had to be addressed.  The Commission could play a pivotal role in this regard, together with the support and cooperation of the international community. 

FILALI KAMEL, of the Commission nationale consultative de promotion et de protection des droits de l’homme (Algeria), said that the Commission was set up under the Constitution to protect human rights and liberties and to promote the dignity of all without discrimination.  The Commission had a mandate to study all human rights situations, take action to increase public awareness, promote research and education, examine legislation in order to improve it in the field of human rights, work with UN and regional committees, promote cooperation with NGOs, carry out mediation activities, and produce an annual report on the state of human rights in Algeria.  The Commission had a local network which allowed it to investigate and prevent violations.

RAMON CUSTODIO LOPEZ, of the Comisionado Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (Honduras), said that in Central America, there were Human Rights Procurators, such as in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Panama; and in Costa Rica it had the title of “Citizens’ Defender”.  In Costa Rica and Panama they were managed under the Central American Council, which was chaired on yearly rotation of the members of the countries.  It dealt with human rights issues and resolved problems at the national and regional level.  The work of those institutions comprised actions against discrimination to which migrants,

persons of African descent, and persons living with HIV/AIDS faced.  They were also working in favour of vulnerable groups such as children, women, adolescents, disabled persons, and those excluded within the society.  The aim was to provide them with the opportunity and the possibility of a sustainable human development. The Honduran Commission was also working according to a process of reconciliation in order to avoid confrontation and to find solutions.  

HABIB SLIM, of the Comité supérieur des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales de Tunisie, gave a brief overview of the reforms carried out to improve human rights in Tunisia.  The Committee was a relatively young institution.  Despite this, it had a broad constitution bringing together representatives of ministries, non-governmental organizations, journalists, doctors and parliamentarians.  The Committee had obtained rights to visit prisons and places of detention at any time.  In this regard, the Committee had ensured that certain reforms had been carried out in both the judiciary and in law enforcement.  Another reform had been on executions of judgements in court.  It was added that the Committee had been given a role to receive requests from citizens concerning human rights.  This had been an extremely interesting and constructive procedure for the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Commission on Human Rights was informed that there still existed several challenges, including the penitentiary regime.  In the meantime, the Committee was undertaking activities to disseminate information in order to establish a genuine human rights culture in Tunisia.   

* *** *