Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Third Committee

39^th & 40^th Meetings (AM & PM)

THIRD COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORTS ON INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS,

TORTURE, HUMAN RIGHTS TO FOOD, FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Draft Resolutions Introduced on Office

Of UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mercenaries

The Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, today called on governments to fulfil their legal obligation to respect, fulfil and protect the right to food, as the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) continued its consideration of alternative approaches to the promotion of human rights.  The Committee was also briefed by the Special Rapporteurs on torture and freedom of religion, and by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons. 

The right to food was a human right protected by international law, said Mr. Ziegler, stressing that total priority had to be given to the obligation of States to feed their people.  He said little progress had been made by governments despite promises made at the Second World Food Summit in 2002 to halve the number of victims of hunger by 2015.  Stating that approximately 100,000 persons were dying from hunger or its related causes every day, he said it was an outrage that such hunger persisted in a world where more than enough food was being produced to feed the world’s people. 

Moreover, he continued, transnational corporations needed to be held accountable for respecting human rights obligations related to the right to food, since transnational corporations sometimes held more power than States.  Governments must ensure that corporations did not violate human rights, particularly the right to food.  His report outlined a legal framework that sought to hold corporations accountable for respecting human rights obligations. 

Some representatives raised concerns about the Special Rapporteur’s assertions that transnational corporations should be held accountable for respecting human rights obligations related to the right to food.  Some questioned whether such an approach would divert attention from the responsibility of States in protecting human rights.  Others questioned to what extent such corporations could be held to international human rights standards. 

The Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief, Abdelfattah Amor, presented his report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, highlighting education as the best way to overcome misunderstandings related to religious differences.  He said religious intolerance was growing at an alarming rate and that the international community had not done enough to implement education initiatives to combat religion-based intolerance and discrimination. 

Several representatives expressed concerns about the violation of the right to freedom of religion as it related to anti-terrorism measures and the need to distinguish between acts of terrorism and the mistreatment of minorities.

Mr. Amor stressed the need for States to refrain from excessive reactions when combating terrorism, noting that the fight against terrorism had often led to the violation of human rights. 

The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Theo van Boven, presented his report, saying he was deeply troubled about the erosion of consensus within the international community that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading forms of treatment or punishment were absolutely forbidden as a norm of international law.  In recent times, this consensus had been compromised by considerations and policies of expediency and presumed higher interests.  Many such policies and practices, he noted, were related to counter-terrorism measures. 

Presenting a report on internally displaced persons, Francis Deng, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, said that while there had been considerable progress in the international community’s response to the global crisis of internal displacement, there were still too many internally displaced persons (IDPs) around the world who lacked adequate food, shelter and other basic necessities and were still no closer to return or resettlement.  There remained serious problems of coordination among international institutional mechanisms that left the pressing needs of many IDPs unmet.  Serious questions remained to be answered about how to assign responsibilities and how to ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms.  He urged immediate, effective and efficient action by the international community to address these shortcomings. 

Also today the Committee heard introductions of draft resolutions on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).  The representative of Denmark, on behalf of the Nordic countries, introduced a draft resolution on the UNHCR that reaffirmed the support of the General Assembly for the Office’s work.  The representative of Denmark also took the floor to introduce a draft resolution on the implementation of actions proposed by the UNHCR to strengthen the capacity of the Office to carry out its mandate.  A draft resolution on the enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the UNHCR was introduced by the representative of Egypt. 

The representative of Cuba introduced a draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. 

The Committee will reconvene tomorrow, Wednesday 12 November, at 10 a.m., to continue its consideration of alternative approaches to the promotion of human rights, as well as reports of special rapporteurs and representatives on Myanmar, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and on the right to the enjoyment of health. 

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) will continue its consideration of human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights, human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, as well as the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.  For additional background, see Press release GA/SHC/3762 of 10 November.

Before the Third Committee is an interim report by the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (document A/58/296).  The report summarizes the Special Rapporteur’s communications with States and their responses to inquiries on questions of inter-religious violence, the legal and practical limitations on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion, anti-terrorist measures taken against certain religious communities, the role of the press, conscientious objection and protection of religious sites. 

The report finds that the events of 11 September 2001 have had a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, and especially on the right to freedom of religion or belief.  The Special Rapporteur has noted that in some cases the events of 11 September 2001 have been used to legitimize and to strengthen pre-existing policies for the persecution of religious groups.  The report concludes that many States have taken the simplistic view that, since religions are at the root of many terrorist acts, the most direct means of preventing such acts is to limit the existence of religion.  In these cases counter-terrorist activities have focused on limiting the exercise of civil and political rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief.

In many cases, rather than protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief, States have used the pretext of security in response to terrorist threats to limit the exercise of that right.  The Special Rapporteur has observed a new upsurge in administrative regulations on freedom of religion and notes that many States have used the compulsory registration of religious groups and the imposition of regulations governing them to restrict the exercise of freedom of religion or belief, often in violation of international standards.

The Special Rapporteur calls on States to respect their fundamental obligations in the area of civil and political rights and to focus on the promotion of such rights.  Highlighting education as an essential tool for teaching a culture of tolerance and non-discrimination, the Special Rapporteur urges action in the area of education and culture as a prerequisite for any effort to combat the root causes of extremism and intolerance.

Also, before the Third Committee is the fifth report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with Assembly resolution 57/200 of 18 December 2002 (document A/58/120).

The Special Rapporteur reports that he visited the Republic of Uzbekistan from 24 November to 6 December 2002, during which he met various senior officials and representatives of civil society organizations, as well as alleged torture victims and their relatives.  He has recommended the adoption of measures to put an end to torture in Uzbekistan.

The Special Rapporteur reports that he met with representatives from Bolivia, China, Georgia, Nepal and Spain with a view to exploring the possibility of undertaking fact-finding visits to these countries.

The report notes the Special Rapporteur has strengthened his cooperation with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States.  With a view to strengthening collaboration within the United Nations system on the issue of torture, the Special Rapporteur met again with members of the Committee against Torture and with the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.

Before the Committee, there is the report of Francis Deng, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons (document A/58/393).  The report reflects upon the achievements of the past 10 years and the challenges that still lie ahead and reviews the progress made in the four areas of work of the Special Representative     -— the “four pillars” -— which include the normative framework; promoting effective institutional arrangements; dialogue with Governments through country missions; and the undertaking of research into new and emerging areas.  Finally, it outlines some of the challenges ahead.

The report states that significant progress has been made in the areas of norm-setting, institutional arrangements, and operational responses to the needs of internally displaced persons.  A great deal has been achieved regarding the normative aspect of the work of the mandate through the development of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.  The Principles are now a widely accepted standard and a useful tool for addressing the protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons.  In addition, the Special Representative’s country missions have succeeded in establishing a pattern of constructive dialogue with Governments and other pertinent actors on behalf of the internally displaced.

Despite those achievements, the Special Representative concludes that there still remains a significant gap between the postulated standards, institutional structures and operational performance, on the one hand, and the still compelling needs of the displaced populations for protection and assistance, on the other hand.  The challenge for the future may be a more precise assessment of the degree to which the international community has in fact succeeded or failed to respond to the global crisis of internal displacement; the gaps that exist in meeting the protection and assistance needs of the internally displaced; and what needs to be done to bridge that gap.  The report states that there is need for a more thorough appraisal of the system and its operations to determine the extent to which it can be made to be more effective in providing a comprehensive system of protection and assistance to the internally displaced persons of the world.

Before the Committee is a report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right to food (document a/58/330).  The report reiterates the importance of the right to food as a human right, a right that must be realized if hunger is to be eradicated around the world.  The Special Rapporteur notes that despite promises made by Governments at the World Food Summit, little progress is being made in reducing hunger.  According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the number of undernourished people around the world increased from 815 million in 2001 to 840 million in 2002.

The Special Rapporteur addresses pressing issues related to the right to food, including how gender relations can negatively impact women’s right to food and the unprecedented control of transnational corporations over the food system.  The report outlines the legal framework that seeks to hold corporations to respect for human rights, particularly with the right to food.  It also describes positive developments in Brazil and Sierra Leone, which have made progress in promoting the right to food.

The Special Rapporteur urges Governments to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food in accordance with their human rights obligations.  Much work remains to be done in improving the legal protection of the right to food, particularly for women.  The report also urges governments to regulate transnational corporations and to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power over the global food system.

There is also the report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Paul Hunt (A/58/427).  The report reflects on the activities of, and issues of particular interest to, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.  Section II states that health indicators can help States recognize when policy adjustments may be required.  The Special Rapporteur argues that some right to health indicators may help a State monitor the progressive realization of the right to health in its jurisdiction, while others may help to monitor the exercise of international responsibilities that extend beyond a State’s borders and impact on health in other jurisdictions.

As requested by the Commission on Human Rights, section III provides an introductory overview of some of the conceptual and other issues arising from the right to health.  Section IV expressed the concern of the Special Rapporteur about the continuing obstacles to ensuring access to prevention and treatment for HIV/AIDS.  He suggests that one of the most distinctive contributions that human rights bring to the struggle against the HIV/AIDS pandemic is enhanced accountability. Section V briefly highlights the need to address the implications of neglected diseases on the right to health and suggests that it might be timely to devise a right to health approach to the elimination of leprosy.  Finally, as requested by the Commission, the Special Rapporteur comments on the proposal for an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

The representative of Denmark introduced a draft resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (document A/C.3/58/L.39) on behalf of the Nordic countries.  The purpose of the draft resolution, as in past years, was to reaffirm the support of the General Assembly for the work of the UNHCR and to allow the Assembly to exercise its function of providing policy directives on essential aspects of that work, while recalling the responsibilities shared as States.

Introducing a draft resolution on the enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the UNHCR (document A/C.3/58/L.40), the representative of Egypt said her Government accorded considerable attention to caring for refugees within the country.  Egypt was closely connected to the Executive Programme of the UNHCR and was pleased to put forward the above-mentioned draft resolution, which would increase the number of members of the Executive Committee of the Programme.  

The representative of Denmark also took the floor to introduce a draft resolution on the implementing actions proposed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to strengthen the capacity of his Office to carry out its mandate (document A/C.3/58/L.41).  The draft reaffirmed the UNHCR’s core mandate for refugees and other persons of concern and welcomed the Office’s efforts to strengthen its links with other parts of the United Nations system.  He said the draft also reiterated the primarily voluntary nature of funding for the UNHCR and encouraged it to expand its donor base and diversify its funding sources.  The draft contained two decisions, one to remove the time bound limitation on the term of the Office, and an adjustment to UNHCR’s reporting requirements through the Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly. 

Also today, the representative of Cuba introduced a draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/58/L.32).  He said all peoples had the right to self-determination and respect for their sovereignty.  The exercise of this right was a sine qua non prerequisite for the attainment of all other rights.  The draft was linked to the work of the Special Rapporteur on this topic and aimed to strengthen States’ commitment to eliminate the use of mercenaries. 

ABDELFATTAH AMOR, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, presenting his report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, said the inter-religion dialogue was strewn with obstacles that could only be eliminated through respect and understanding of others.  Education was the best way to overcome misunderstandings related to differences of religious beliefs, but the international community did not seem overly involved in this area.  Despite invitations to States by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights to implement education programmes to combat religion-based intolerance and discrimination, few new initiatives had been undertaken.  Religious minorities remained vulnerable, and anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and especially Islamophobia were growing at an alarming rate.  The complex realities of people were often reduced to certain formulas and slogans to serve purposes of discriminatory and hateful propaganda.

He noted that religious extremism today was going through a rejuvenated period, and it was especially critical to look at what was happening with Islam.  All problems must not be blamed on Muslim society.  Calling Islam an axis of evil was contributing to Islamophobia, and served to legitimize extremists for whom Islam was a pretext rather than a cause.

Interactive Dialogue on Freedom of Religion

A representative of Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked about education in the fight against discrimination on religious grounds.  He also mentioned the violation of the right to freedom of religion with regard to anti-terrorism measures.  Finally he asked a question on the increase in discrimination and intolerance and the potential role of the media, civil society and national institutions.

Responding, Mr. AMOR said that intolerance must be contained.  But it was not enough to contain intolerance; it was necessary to engage in preventive action.  The best tool for preventive action was education, not only in schools, but also within society and the family.  Efforts had been made in schools within his mandate, but further training and monitoring were needed.  Such training and monitoring were essentially the responsibility of States.  Education within the family must start with the education of parents.  However, this required a willingness on the part of the family to learn and to understand religious tolerance.  There were often complications in this regard, since many people with religious beliefs were certain that they held the only key to the truth.

He stressed that the right to believe was absolute.  The manifestation of religious beliefs could, however, be restricted.  There were contradictions within existing human rights instruments on the freedom of belief.  Concerning the role of the media, he said that not all media were carrying out activities that increased intolerance.  But there were some media that expressed very one-sided beliefs and promoted discrimination and stigmatization to a certain degree.  In domestic and international law, there were provisions against slandering religions and the incitement of hate.  Yet, intolerance continued.  Codes of professional conduct within the media must be established to fight such sociological realities.  National institutions could do a great deal to fight intolerance.

The representative of Pakistan said the Special Rapporteur had listed a few incidents where minorities had been targets of attacks that had sometimes led to killings.  Pakistan believed that some of those cases were acts of terrorism and were targeted attacks.  There must be a distinction between acts of terrorism and the mistreatment of minorities.  Instances of terrorism must not be listed as cases of religious intolerance.  Within Pakistan, activities had been undertaken that included law enforcement reforms and media awareness campaigns, to fight such terrorism.  He noted that his region was rife with religious intolerance and pointed to last year’s killings of 2,000 Muslims as well as the threats to, and destruction of religious sites.  The Special Rapporteur was asked to mention some of those incidents in his next report.

The Special Rapporteur had stressed the need for States to refrain from excessive behaviour leading to intolerance, including when combating terrorism, said the representative of Switzerland.  The Government of Switzerland endorsed this recommendation.

The representative of New Zealand said that focus had been placed on religious discrimination and violence against women and asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on areas of concern.

Responding, Mr. AMOR said that he would not even aim to define terrorism and that embarking on such a path might not be constructive.  The concept of terrorism must not be used loosely, he said.  He would therefore not attempt to define terrorism within his mandate but only focus on the fact that the combating of terrorism had often led to disrespect for human rights.

Concerning the situation of Pakistan, he said he had considered the acts of violence to which minorities had been subjected.  Minorities would continue to be at the focus of his attention.  Since 11 September, the situation had become exceptionally difficult for minorities, as they fell victims to States trying to repress the religious movements.

Concerning violence against women and religion, he said the topic was of particular importance to him.  He had undertaken an independent study on that issue two years ago and had dealt with related human rights issues.  When looking at what was attributed to religions and traditions to justify the repression of women, one could easily be revolted.  He referred the representative of New Zealand to this study that had been translated from English to French by non-governmental organizations.

The representative of Iran asked the Special Rapporteur to address the contradiction between respecting freedom of expression, the mother of all human rights, and the negative consequences of limitless freedom of expression.  He suggested it might be helpful for governments if the Special Rapporteur could develop guidelines for how freedom of expression could be protected while preventing and minimizing negative consequences.

He stressed that his delegation believed it was the responsibility of States, and not groups or followers of certain religions, to implement provisions of international instruments.  It was States, therefore, that must be held accountable for non-compliance with provisions of international instruments.

The representative of China, addressing the text of the Special Rapporteur’s report concerning Falun Gong, said his delegation wanted to reiterate that Falun Gong was not a religion, but a cult that uses religious language as propaganda.  Their activities had psychologically harmed women, children and people in general, he said.  The Chinese Government had responded to the Special Rapporteur many times in the past, and his delegation hoped the Special Rapporteur would take into account the Chinese Government’s responses to this issue.

Mr. AMOR, responding, said the complaints he had received from Falun Gong were numerous and continuous as were the replies provided by China’s Government.  He noted that both the allegations and the responses to the allegations had always been taken into account.  On the issue of whether Falun Gong was a religion or not, he said there was no internationally recognized definition of religion.  Was it up to the State to decide what was a religion and what was not?  The concept of belief as enshrined in international law included belief in a God, belief in a religion, as well as non-religious, anti-religious and atheistic beliefs.

It was enough to have a conviction or belief for this belief to be as worthy of respect as a religious belief, he said.  Beliefs concerned the internal private life of the individual; they were not part of State law.  The State was not responsible for the acts of the individual -- individuals were responsible for their own acts.  However, when individuals behaved in a criminal fashion, then the law must be applied.  He would continue to handle allegations of Falun Gong and would continue referring them to the Government.  The only point of view he was allowed to have was the human rights perspective as assigned by his mandate.

Regarding the concerns of the Iran delegation, he said it was important to point out that beliefs, especially those of minorities, were often attacked, and at times by the media.  Freedom of the press must be protected, but when excesses were committed, they had to handle within the context of domestic and international law, and from a human rights perspective.  The State could be the origin of such excesses but they could also be committed by media groups.

States had to be held accountable for violations taking place in their territories, he said.  In such cases, States were responsible and must answer for acts in violation of human rights.  He recommended a serious objective study to be carried out within the context of his mandate or the mandate on racism, to study and pinpoint problems, noting that once a problem was defined clearly it was half solved.

Statement by Special Rapporteur on Torture

THEO VAN BOVEN, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on torture, said he was deeply troubled that the international community was facing an erosion of the consensus principle that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was absolutely forbidden as an imperative norm of international law.  In recent times, this consensus was losing ground and was compromised by considerations and policies of expediency and presumed higher interests.  A few examples of overt and covert policies that tended to undermine the principle of absolute prohibition of torture were frequent resort to prolonged incommunicado detention; the dilution of the notion of torture so as to allow the application of a variety of forms of physical force and mental pressure; the creation of legal and jurisdictional limbos; and the deportation or transfer of suspects to places where there were substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Many of such policies and practices were related to counter-terrorism measures, he said, still insisting on the non-derogability of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under all circumstances.  In his report, he had paid a good deal of attention to the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in the context of anti-terrorism measures, as well as the trade in and production of equipment that was specifically designed to inflict torture.  His report also covered the prevention of torture in psychiatric institutions.

He stressed that victims of torture must obtain redress and be awarded adequate, effective and prompt reparations.  Torture survivors, perhaps more than other victims, encountered lack of political will on the part of public authorities to investigate and to acknowledge torture practices.  Torture survivors often lacked access to justice and to effective recourse procedures. 

Among his activities was the sending of urgent appeals to clarify the situation of persons whose circumstances gave grounds to fear that they were the actual or imminent subject of treatment amounting to torture or ill-treatment.  Between 15 December 2002 and November 2003, he had sent 302 urgent appeals to 63 different authorities.  He stressed that no matter how wrongly, dangerously or even criminally a person might act, every human being was legally and morally entitled to protection of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

Finally, as regarded fact-finding missions that allowed him to gain more direct knowledge of situations falling within his mandate, he told the Committee that he had carried out two missions to Uzbekistan and Spain, and that missions were under consideration to China, Bolivia, Georgia and Nepal.  Repeated requests for invitations to carry out visits to Algeria, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Israel, the Russian Federation with respect to the Republic of Chechnya, and Tunisia were still pending and remained un-complied with. 

Interactive Dialogue

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Italy raised issues related to the reparations for victims of torture.  He asked about the possibility of coordination between human rights instruments to increase the pressure put on States in this regard.  Concerning the trade of tools and instruments for the purpose of torture, he asked about global approaches to control such proliferation.  In addition, questions were raised about the torture of mentally ill persons.

The representative of Switzerland said his country agreed that the right to be free from torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment was a non-derogable right.  He added that monitoring mechanisms be established to control the trade of tools and instruments used for torture, and that the Commission on Human Rights and the Committee against Torture might provide wisdom in this regard.

Regarding allegation letters, the representative of Kenya asked to what extent they were up to date.  He had noted that some allegations referred to incidents having occurred several decades ago.

The representative of Canada raised issues concerning policies and practices related to counter-terrorism, and asked about issues of particular importance in that regard.

The Russian Federation attached great importance to the work and procedures of the Human Rights Commission, said a representative of that country.  However, he stressed that cooperation between States and the special procedures must be carried out on an exclusively voluntary basis.  There had been a mention of visits to certain States that had not taken place.  The manner in which this issue had been raised could mistakenly give the impression that some States did not wish to cooperate with the special procedures.  The Russian Federation was for cooperation on a voluntary basis.

Responding, Mr. VAN BOVEN said that reparational justice for victims was a broad question that involved not only financial compensation, but also rehabilitation and the guarantee that such offences would not be repeated.  To enhance such justice, certain steps were being taken at national and international levels.  Work was under way in Geneva in relation to this issue.  It was hoped that the Commission on Human Rights would find it possible to adopt or endorse principles and guidelines on reparational justice.  For the first time, within the Statute of the International Criminal Court, due attention was being given to the situation of victims.  He also elaborated on cooperation with the Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture, as well as with the Committee against Torture.

Concerning control mechanism for instruments specifically designed to inflict torture, he said that the international community first had to agree on a list of such instruments.  The European Union, in a draft regulation, had drawn up a list of this type of equipment.  A lot of work remained to devise such a control mechanism, he said.  It might be necessary to look at the experience of officials dealing with the trafficking of drugs, human beings or human organs.

On the issue of psychiatric institutions, he said that the determination of mental illness must never be based on economic, social or political status, or on cultural, ethnic or national origin.  There was a good degree of judicial control of psychiatric institutions.  There were also review bodies that monitored the administration of treatment and drugs to patients.

Responding to other questions, including that on allegation letters, he said that it was impossible to go back to the days of Adam and Eve.  However, in some circumstances, persons continued to be victimized.  In the last set of allegations, a deadline for incidents as reported from the year 2000 onwards had been established.

On issues of concern to him related to anti-terrorism measures, he said that the issues mentioned in the beginning of his statement warranted due attention.

The Russian Federation had insisted that the mechanisms of the Commission were not treaty mechanisms but based on voluntary cooperation on the part of States.  The Commission on Human Rights, year after year, had requested States to cooperate.  This was an important request since the United Nations system would not function without the cooperation of States.  There was a duty to cooperate when a non-derogable right was involved.  However, he admitted that special rapporteurs could only operate within and with States with their consensus.

Internally Displaced Persons

FRANCIS DENG, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, said that while there had been considerable progress in the international community’s response to the global crisis of internal displacement, there were still too many internally displaced persons around the world who lacked adequate food, shelter and other basic necessities.  Many were being subjected to physical violence, sexual assault and discrimination and were still no closer to return or resettlement and were urgently in need of assistance.

He said the development and application of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, based on binding principles of international humanitarian law, had been well received by governments, United Nations agencies, regional organizations and non-governmental organizations.  Equally significant was the development of effective institutional mechanisms, at the international level, for assisting States in carrying out responsibilities regarding internally displaced persons.

He stressed, however, that serious problems of coordination persisted, and many internally displaced persons continued to fall through institutional cracks, which left their pressing needs unmet.  Serious questions remained to be answered about how to assign responsibilities and how to ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms.  This required immediate, effective and efficient action by the international community.

He said the refusal of some countries to allow access to their internally displaced populations and thereby avoiding dialogue on their behalf, remained a pressing issue.  It was precisely in those countries that the needs of the displaced for assistance and protection tended to be most pronounced.  He urged the international community to respond to those situations.

He said the most pivotal and difficult issue was addressing the root causes of internal displacement that were often embedded in gross inequities, discrimination and marginalization.  Internal displacement and the conflicts that generated it were only symptoms of deeper structural problems.  International displacement was more than a humanitarian and human rights issue; it was a political and security issue that posed a challenge to nation-building.

Interactive Dialogue

A representative of the Sudan, having examined the report, said a ministerial meeting had been held in Khartoum on developments in East Africa.  The report of the Special Representative had mentioned that meeting, which had been held at a crucial moment and was the first such meeting on displacement in the region.  She voiced her appreciation to Mr. Deng for his interest in her region. 

There was a need to disseminate the guiding principles in this field to ensure effective cooperation, said the representative of Mexico.  It was hoped that a meeting to be held soon in Mexico, with the participation of Mr. Deng, would address the issue. 

The representative of Switzerland said he was happy to see that the guiding principles on internally displaced persons were today held up and recognized by the international community.  It was regrettable, however, that there was a gap between the standards adopted and the situation on the ground.  As the report had referred to the activities of regional organizations, he asked for further elaboration on the role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Italy asked about the guiding principles and the increasing number of States using those principles.  Was the awareness of the guiding principles satisfactory to the Special Representative?  The Special Representative was also asked to elaborate on the cooperation possible with the unit concerning internally displaced persons in the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the visits he would carry out in the future. 

The representative of Azerbaijan asked the Special Rapporteur to what address the issue of cooperation with regional and international organizations.  Could he assess the extent to which those organizations had integrated internally displaced persons perspectives in their current activities and agenda?

The representative of Norway referring to the report’s assessment of the gap between theory and practice, between words and action, asked the Special Rapporteur if he could address the specific areas on which the international community needed to focus its attention today.  Were there concrete areas that the international community could address in order to improve its response to the needs of IDPs?

The representative of Japan asked about relationship between the United Nations agencies that carried out activities with IDPs and the governments concerned.  What difficulties had he encountered in his work with the governments concerned?

The representative of Armenia said her delegation had studied the Special Rapporteur’s report and felt there was a need for further strengthening and more coordination of joint activities.  Was it possible to consider placing the coordination of IDP-related activities in Armenia under the High Commissioner for Refugees? 

During the afternoon, the Committee continued its deliberations.

Mr. DENG, responding, said, regarding the Sudan’s concerns about meetings at the Intergovernmental Authority for Development conference in Khartoum, that it was never part of his work to be mindless about the sovereignty concerns of governments.

Concerning the guiding principles, he said there had been just five years of experience of working with them and disseminating information about them.  That work was still in its early stages, and his Office would continue organizing workshops and conducting research.  One of the most critical outcomes of the work was the extent to which internally displaced persons themselves were being informed of the values of the guiding principles and of the human rights to which they were entitled, and which should be protected by relevant authorities.  His Office was also trying to link research agendas among academia and was trying to encourage dialogue between academics and practitioners.

Addressing concerns about cooperation with regional and international organizations, he said his commitment to finding durable solutions always entailed attention to the issue of causes.  He had always considered it important to link responses to displacement to addressing the root causes.  In this regard, he was working with organizations involved with the peace process.

He stressed that the results of collaborative approaches had to penetrate down to affect the people concerned.  Even when responsibility was assigned to all relevant agencies, questions remained about accountability and the hierarchy of accountability.  He hoped the current evaluation under way would address that issue.  The goal was for agencies to work together collectively to be effective on the ground.

Right to Food

JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said the right to food was a human right that was protected by international law.  Governments had a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food.  According to the World Food Report of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately 100,000 persons were dying from hunger or its related causes every day.  Every seven seconds, a child below the age of 10 was dying from hunger and every four minutes, a person lost his or her eyesight for a lack of vitamin A.  Little progress was currently being made to reduce hunger, despite promises by governments at the Second World Food Summit in 2002 to halve the number of victims of hunger by 2015. 

It was an outrage that hunger persisted in a world where more than enough food was now produced to feed the global population, he said.  It was indeed time to recognize that the dominating neoliberal economic model was producing great wealth but was simultaneously leaving many in great poverty, struggling to feed themselves. 

During the year 2003, the most important country mission was the one conducted to the occupied Palestinian territories, where 61 per cent out of 3.8 million Palestinians were chronically, and for many of them gravely, undernourished.  A humanitarian catastrophe was in the making, due mainly to the closures, curfews, and continuous extensions of the settlements and the military zones.  If the security wall was built, it was clear that the Palestinian people would have even more difficulties in realizing the right to food.  The Palestinian civil population was therefore largely deprived of its right to food. 

The aim of the conceptual chapter of his report was to further develop the analytical framework and address difficult and pressing issues related to the right to food, including issues related to gender and transnational corporations.  The chapter on transnational corporations and the right to food aimed to outline a legal framework that sought to hold corporations to respect human rights obligations, particularly the right to food.  He said a further chapter examined emerging examples of good practice and positive developments occurring with respect to the right to food around the world.  Transnational corporations must be held accountable for their activities, and governments must ensure that corporations did not violate human rights, particularly the right to food.  The last chapter of his report dealt with positive developments and activities undertaken by the Governments of Brazil and Sierra Leone. 

Human rights and the respect for human rights had previously only addressed States.  In today’s international order, transnational corporations also needed to be held accountable, he said, since transnational corporations sometimes held more power than States.  Justice in certain areas could be demanded but perhaps not empirically measured, such as in the case of the right to food, he said.  Total priority must be given to the obligation of States to feed their people.  The right to food was a human right that required a normative approach. 

Interactive Dialogue

The representative of Italy asked the Special Rapporteur to address discrimination against women as it related to gender discrimination in the fulfilment of the right to food.

The representative of Israel said Israel viewed the statement with serious concern, both in view of its substantive content and its politicized views.  He said the report provided a platform for unsubstantiated allegations against Israel.  It was regretful that the report failed to mention the loss of life due to terrorist attacks and that it completely ignored Israel’s security dilemmas. It depicted the situation in the territories in an oversimplified manner, repeatedly characterizing the humanitarian crisis as man-made, thereby insinuating that Israel was to blame for the crisis.  The report conveyed a clear message to the Palestinian side that the United Nations was a convenient and willing forum for bypassing the peace process.

The representative of Egypt thanked Mr. Ziegler for his report, his integrity and his courage.  The mandate of the Special Rapporteur concerned the right to food, not the right to security.  The Special Rapporteur had appropriately raised the suffering in the occupied Palestinian territories, where 61 per cent of 3.8 million Palestinians were facing a humanitarian catastrophe.  The Special Rapporteur was asked to elaborate on how their situation would be affected by the building of a separation wall.

Women were key to food security, said the representative of Liechtenstein, stressing that more focus needed to be paid in the report to women’s role in procuring food.  Secondly, regarding transnational corporations, he asked to what extent such corporations could be held to international human rights standards.  The report seemed to provide contradictory information on the legal obligations of transnational corporations. 

The representative of Tunisia said that the mandate of Mr. Ziegler went in the same direction as all work related to the protection of human rights.

The Observer for Palestine thanked Mr. Ziegler for shedding light on the situation of the Palestinian people and the violation of their right to food under Israeli occupation.  She asked about the status of the report from the visit to the occupied Palestinian territories and when it would be available to Member States.  She expressed concern about the culture of the Israeli delegation in attacking Special Rapporteurs with threats and intimidation, when it was clear that the Special Rapporteurs were only carrying out the mandates given to them by the Member States of the United Nations.

The representative of Canada asked the Special Rapporteur to comment on the proposition that there was a wide range of approaches that could be used to implement the right to adequate food, particularly as there was no agreed definition of the right to adequate food.  Canada also questioned whether attempting to impose obligations on transnational corporations and non-State actors would not ultimately result in diverting the focus of the international community from the responsibility of States to respect human rights. 

The representative of the United States said the report presented by the Special Rapporteur contained useful observations to improve women’s access to food.  However the report’s recommendations and assertions were objectionable, including the mischaracterization of the scope of right to adequate food and its assertion that corporations as opposed to States should be held accountable for the protection of human rights. 

He said the Special Rapporteur was using his platform to promote his own political point of view.  United Nations procedures did not appear to have been followed in producing his report.  For instance, it was made public before the concerned country could comment.  The Special Rapporteur continued to use the United Nations as a cover for his own political perspectives, and the United States delegation had grave reservations about his mandate. 

Mr. ZIEGLER approached the questions asked one by one.  Responding to the questions by the representative of Italy on gender discrimination, he said it was difficult to provide clear answers to some of them.  Even in Switzerland, women performing the same tasks as men were on average paid 30 per cent less.  Such discrimination was not only a concern in developing countries, but all over the world.  There was not one reason for the discrimination against women regarding access to food.  A special emphasis on the reasons behind discrimination against women when it came to food, land and income, was needed.

Concerning obstacles in achieving food security, he stressed the importance of agricultural reform.  It was ironic that those in charge of producing food were also those suffering from hunger.  In this connection, he welcomed the initiatives undertaken by President Lula of Brazil in approaching land reform and rural poverty. 

Addressing Israel’s statement, he said he had been reproached in many ways and responded by saying that he, like any other sensible person, was horrified by the violence that was taken place in the region.  Each victim of the violence in the region, irrespective of his or her nationality or origin, was a tragedy.  He added that he had cooperated with Israeli institutions as well as Palestinian institutions.  He had been openly welcomed by the Department of Defence and had enjoyed frank and good discussions. 

Security remained a concern, he said, and the obligation to provide food security applied across the board.  There were tens of thousands of Palestinian children suffering from malnutrition and anaemia, and that had absolutely nothing to do with the suicide-bombings and the violence in the region.  He concluded by saying that he was just a humble Special Rapporteur and that he did not understand how his report could possibly threaten upcoming negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Concerning the question on the security wall and the consequences on Palestinian people raised by Egypt, he said the fence was being largely built on Palestinian territory.  The building of this wall must be stopped since it ran counter to the purposes of the Road Map.  Already, 200,000 Palestinians had lost their access to land and water due to the construction of the wall.

Responding to Liechtenstein, he said that the role of women and the right to food was indeed important, particularly in terms of underweight childbirth.  When children lacked nutrients, they were maimed for life.  Concerning the second issue on obligations of transnational corporations, he said that there were indeed some contradictions since he was at a preliminary analytical stage.  The international community needed new norms to deal with powerful corporations. 

The report on Palestine was on the United Nations Web site and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Web site, he said, in response to the observer for Palestine.  It was true that the Government of Israel seemed to have bad relations with the Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner.  However, he was the first Special Rapporteur that had been able to move around the occupied Palestinian territories and meet with relevant people.

Canada was indeed a pioneer when it came to the right to food; however the right to water was another story, he said.  A special rapporteur was just a rapporteur -– a scholar exposing problems and suggesting solutions.

Turning to the representative of the United States, he paid tribute to the speaker from the United State, who unlike his predecessor had not claimed that there was no such thing as the right to food and that only the market forces could lead to food security.  The neo-liberal vision was very different from the vision on the right to food endorsed by the Commission on Human Rights.

He told the Committee of the privatization of water in Bolivia by a major American multinational that had charged citizens for something that should be a human right.  It was clear that he and the United States held very different views about the very concept of the right to food.  He thanked the representative of the United States for his ongoing attention to the work of the Special Rapporteur.  This would surely make him work harder to ensure that the right to food was attained all over the world.

* *** *