Fifty-ninth General Assembly

Third Committee

34^th Meeting (AM)

As Third Committee concludes discussion of human rights, delegates

call for Commission’s reform, citing excessive politicization

As the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) concluded its general discussion of human rights issues today, several delegations voiced concerns that the Commission on Human Rights was becoming excessively politicized and called for its reform and revitalization.

The special procedures of the Commission, as its “eyes and ears”, played an important role in promoting and protecting human rights, said the representative of Malaysia.  However, their mandates must be conducted in conformity with the principles of fairness, objectivity and non-selectivity.  Moreover, the Commission’s independent experts must remain with their mandates.

Urging the international community to defend the sovereign right to self-determination, Cuba’s representative stressed the importance of the world’s diversity of cultures, religions, political and social systems.  To that end, the principles of objectivity and impartiality -– currently absent from the school of human rights –- must be admitted straight away.

Nobody had bequeathed the countries of the North the power to judge the political and social organizations of other equally-sovereign States, he continued.  Until the promotion and protection of human rights was founded on objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity, strengthening international cooperation for human rights would remain unattainable.

The present discussion of human rights should focus on national experiences, not magnifying the shortcomings of Member States, suggested the representative of Indonesia.  It would be counterproductive to give the impression that human rights were best implemented in one country or in a particular way; no country in the world could claim to be free from violations of human rights.

Promoting international cooperation on human rights, he agreed, required even-handed respect for the views of other Member States.  His own country stood ready to cooperate in promoting and protecting the rights of all human beings on the basis of the principle of equality.

The Commission on Human Rights –- the Organization’s leading intergovernmental body on the issue -– was largely dysfunctional and incapable of carrying out the mandate assigned to it, agreed Liechtenstein’s representative.  Its discussions continued to be sterile, repetitive, and even hostile.  The absence of clear criteria for consideration of country situations had negatively impacted the work carried out in various thematic areas.

The central issue, he acknowledged, concerned the combination of thematic and country-specific deliberations.  Separating the two would be beneficial to the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Commission might also limit its thematic work to standard-setting, monitoring and technical assistance.

Also addressing the Committee this morning were the representatives of Cyprus, Argentina, Colombia, Nigeria, Greece, Qatar, Switzerland, Mexico, Lebanon, Uganda, Syria, Armenia, Togo, Bangladesh and Venezuela.

The Observer for Palestine also addressed the Committee this morning.

The representatives of Myanmar, Turkey, Israel, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Greece and Armenia spoke in exercise of the right of reply this morning, as did the Observer for Palestine.

Opening today’s meeting, the representatives of Qatar and Mexico introduced draft resolutions on future operations of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) and the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, respectively.

The Third Committee will reconvene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, 3 November, to begin its joint general discussion of elimination of racism and racial discrimination and the right of peoples to self-determination.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to continue its consideration of human rights questions.  For additional background information, please see Press Release GA/SHC/3792 of 26 October, as well as Press Releases GA/SHC/3793, GA/SHC/3794 and GA/SHC/3795, of 27, 28 and 29 October, respectively.

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

Opening the morning meeting, the representative of Qatar introduced a draft on Future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/C.3/59/L.26), noting that it had been 10 months since the appointment of the Institute’s new Director of Research.  The Institute had taken the strategic initiative to strengthen cooperation with the United Nations, as well as other international agencies and national and regional bodies.  It had also increased its research and information activities and awareness-raising.  It was his belief that the Institute would meet and overcome challenges that continued to face it.

Introducing a draft on the International Convention of the Protection of the Rights of All Migrants Workers and Members of Their Families (document A/C.3/59/L.31), the representative of Mexico said the entry into force of the Convention in July 2003 had constituted an important step ahead in protection of the rights of migrants and their families.  The draft focused on promoting ratification of the Convention to obtain universality, its effective implementation by all States parties and the effective functioning of the related Committee.

Statements on Human Rights

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said that, at a time when the United Nations was gearing up for major change and overhaul, it was important to consider the place human rights should occupy in a future United Nations.  There had been significant advances of the human rights agenda in many parts of the world, but the overall assessment was that human rights standards continued to be violated worldwide on a horrific scale.  Very often still, governments considered human rights a luxury they could afford during good times, but were prepared to curtail during more difficult periods.

He said political will was always at the centre of successful human rights work.  Pressure must, therefore, be put on governments that wilfully denied the people under their jurisdiction the most basic human rights, in flagrant violation of international standards to which they had voluntarily subscribed.  It was important to assist States that did not treat human rights as a priority, to make them understand that the promotion and protection of all human rights was in their long-term interest and was an indispensable element of sustainable development.

He stressed that human rights must play a prominent role in the overhaul of the United Nations system, which must include institutional changes.  The Commission on Human Rights, the leading intergovernmental body of the United Nations, was largely dysfunctional and incapable of carrying out the mandate assigned to it.  Repetitive, sterile and hostile discussions held during its six weeks sessions took place at the expense of the cause the Commission was designed to promote.  The absence of clear criteria for the consideration of country situations had led to highly political discussions that had little to do with human rights and had a negative impact on work carried out in its various thematic areas.  Since the combination of thematic and country-specific deliberations were at the core of the problem, it would be beneficial for the promotion and protection of human rights to institutionally separate the two areas and to limit the work of the Commission to the thematic areas of standard-setting, monitoring and technical assistance.

ANDREAS D. MAVROYIANNIS (Cyprus) recalled that the latest report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Cyprus had emphasized that the island’s division constituted a serious obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights, including freedom of movement, property rights and human rights issues pertaining to the situation of enclaved Greek Cypriots in the northern part of Cyprus, and the question of missing persons. The de facto partition prevented an adequate assessment of the human rights situation throughout the island.

The Government of Cyprus, he stressed, remained fully committed to implementing its human rights obligations at the national and international levels.  It had worked hard to ensure equal opportunities and promotion of the rights of all its citizens.  Regrettably, his Government was not in a position to apply its policies to the whole of its territory, nor to respond fully to its conventional obligations.  Ongoing violations of the rights of enclaved persons in the occupied area of Cyprus continued to be of grave concern.  However, the partial easing of restriction on movement across the island, and the reopening of the Greek-Cypriot secondary school in Rizokarpaso, were positive developments. Another issue of grave concern was the fate of missing persons in Cyprus.

Given its experience of displacement and grave violations of property rights and freedom of settlement, he continued, Cyprus attributed particular importance to integration of a human rights perspective in issues of population displacement and property restitution.  Essentially, the Cyprus issue remained one of foreign invasion and military occupation.  The continued presence of more than 35,000 Turkish troops in the northern part of the island imposed an artificial division of the island and its people.  No real remedy to the island’s problems could be found without withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Cyprus and the restoration of the human rights of all its citizens.

Suggestions that Turkey had acquitted itself of its obligations to the reunification process because the Turkish Cypriots had voted in favour of the Annan Plan were simplistic, self-serving and mistaken, he concluded.  The accession of Cyprus and Turkey’s aspiration to become a member of the European Union should be taken as a window of opportunity to achieve a solution in line with human rights law.

ALBERTO D’ALOTTO (Argentina) said his Government considered the promotion and protection of human rights a basic pillar of its policies, both domestically and internationally.  The respect of the human being constituted irrevocable principles for his country.  Argentina reaffirmed its commitment to the strengthening of the universal system of the promotion and protection of human rights, in particular the monitoring mechanisms, the Special Rapporteurs and the independent experts.  He noted that Argentina had received visits in 2003 by the independent expert on the right to development and that of the working group on arbitrary detentions.

He said his Government supported the initiative of the new Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to reorganize his report to appropriately incorporate the responses of governments.  Argentina had renewed its commitment to human rights and reiterated its willingness to continue collaborating actively with the mechanisms of the universal system for the promotion and protection of human rights.

HASAN KLEIB (Indonesia) said the focus of the present discussion on human rights should be to discuss national experiences, not to focus or magnify shortcoming of Member States.  It would be counterproductive to give the impression that human rights were best implemented in one country or in a particular way; no country in the world could claim to be free from rights violations.  To promote international cooperation on human rights, the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality, objectivity and respect for the views of other Member States must be taken into account.  His country remained ready to cooperate in promotion and protection of human rights for the benefit of all human beings, in line with the principle of equality.

Indonesia had formally launched its second National Plan of Action on Human Rights in August 2004, he noted.  The second plan contained concrete programmes and plans to be undertaken in the next five years, based on the following six pillars:  establishing and empowering a national mechanism on the promotion and protection of human rights; preparing to ratify international conventions; educating and disseminating human rights values; harmonizing national laws; implementing norms and standards; and monitoring, evaluating and reporting on human rights activities.

His country would continue to promote human rights, he affirmed, as they formed part of the constitutional mandate and foundation of the State.  Despite limited resources, the Government continuously emphasized the importance of sensitizing the general public to basic principles of national and international human rights.  It also held that the promotion of human rights proceeded simultaneously with improvement of democracy; the country had held three successful and peaceful elections this year, culminating in the presidential election.

Human rights must be seen in a broader context, he concluded.  Extreme poverty must be considered the worst human rights violation.  Human rights and human development shared a common purpose, enhanced human capabilities and generated opportunities for lives of dignity, equality and well-being.  Finally, he called on all nations to pay greater attention to the situation in the Middle East.  Israel’s practices over the past year did not reflect any respect for human rights; the failure of nations, especially those championing human rights, had upheld a double standard permitting the abuse of the human rights of the Palestinian people.

NADYA RASHEED, observer of Palestine, said the 37-year old occupation had denied the Palestinian people all their freedoms and rights and had imposed upon them death, destruction, poverty, imprisonment and a perpetual state of armed conflict.  The occupying power had relentless committed human rights violations against the Palestinian people and their leadership.  Their lands, homes, crops, infrastructure, economy and the very fabric of their lives had all become targets of persistent attacks by the Israeli occupying forces.  More than 3,440 Palestinians had been killed and more than 50,000 had been injured since September 2000 by the occupying forces.  The occupying power had also continued to detain and imprison thousands of people.  Such illegal confinement had involved punishment by physical abuse and torture.  Today there were more than 6,000 Palestinians, including more than 350 children and 75 women, being held in Israeli detention centres under the most deplorable and unsanitary conditions.

She said the building of the expansionist wall in the occupied Palestinian territories had further displaced and dispossessed thousands of Palestinians.  The unlawfulness of the wall had been made unequivocally clear under international law as expounded by the International Court of Justice.  The Court had clearly stated that the wall indeed violated both humanitarian law and human rights law and seriously undermined the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

She reiterated that the only way the Palestinian people would be granted their basic and fundamental human rights was by bringing an end to Israel’s prolonged and dehumanizing occupation.  The establishment of a PalestinianState, with east Jerusalem as its capital, would grant the Palestinian people the rights they had yearned for over the years in the face of oppression and subjugation.  She urged the international community to adopt a stronger stance against Israel’s illegal policies and measures it had taken against the Palestinian people.

MARIA ANGELA HOLGUIN CUELLAR (Colombia) said her country rejected the paragraph in the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in which the Special Rapporteur had affirmed that so-called paramilitary or self-defence groups had been “reportedly tolerated or supported by the Government” and that “the killings continue unabated and without any intervention by government forces”. Those assertions were absolutely false; they brought into question the report’s objectivity and seriousness.  The Colombian Government did not tolerate or support the self-defence groups.  Statistics on the fight against illegal armed groups since President Uribe’s entry into office spoke eloquently:  deaths in combat with Colombian Armed Forces had increased by 230 per cent; captures had increased by 300 per cent; and seizure of weapons and ammunition had increased by 287 and 218 per cent respectively.

Additionally, killings committed by illegal armed groups in her country had decreased by more than 70 per cent, she noted, as a result of the Government’s Democratic Security Policy.  That policy aimed to protect the Colombian people, particularly political and union leaders and human rights defenders, who had often fallen victim to illegal armed groups.  Moreover, the peace process initiated by the Government had resulted in the unilateral declaration of a ceasefire and the cessation of hostilities by self-defence groups.  The increased security had also resulted in a decrease in internal displacement of more than 50 per cent since 2002.

Moreover, she stressed, other illegal armed groups -– benignly referred to in the report as “guerrilla movements” -- practiced the same acts of terrorism and had been confronted with equal determination by the Government of Colombia.  Since 2002, their rate of death in combat with the Colombian Armed Forces had increased by 63 per cent, their rate of capture by 223 per cent and seizure of their weapons and ammunition by 97 and 195 per cent, respectively.

To the new Special Rapporteur, she reiterated that the self-defence groups were notState actors, as had been suggested both in the report and in his answer as to why other illegal armed groups had not been covered by the report.  Both the “guerrilla” and self-defence groups were violent groups devoted to drug trafficking and the source of terror and instability in Colombia.  The Government, and the whole nation, was doing its best to combat such illegal armed groups.

AMINU BASHIR WALI (Nigeria) said it had always been the view of Nigeria that human rights issues should be treated in a holistic way.  The disproportionate emphasis on political and civil rights to the detriment of economic, social and cultural rights did not sufficiently address the needs of people in developing countries.  The right to food and the right to development should be at the core of human rights issues.

In Nigeria measures had been taken to heal the wounds of human rights abuses as a result of many years of military rule.  Laws had been enacted to strengthen the promotion and protection of military rule.  The Government had also set up a National Human Rights Commission, which sought redress on behalf of victims of human rights violations.  The non-governmental organizations too were working to advance the cause of human rights in Nigeria.

He said Nigeria had not carried out a single public execution since the assumption of office by President Obasanjo in 1999.  There had also not been on record a single individual stoned to death despite the injunctions of the Sharia law in some parts of the country.

MICHAEL C. DARATZIKIS (Greece) said the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union had created a new, favourable environment for resolution of one of the longest-standing issues on the United Nations’ agenda.  His country continued to favour a settlement of the issue based on relevant Security Council resolutions, as well as the Secretary-General’s plan and the acquis communautaire of the European Union.  The restoration of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots also remained a sine qua non requirement.

The persistent violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms resulting from the invasion and occupation of 37 per cent of the island’s territory by Turkish forces remained a preoccupation for his country, he affirmed.  Among others, there had been violations of the rights of displaced persons, those enclaved in northern Cyprus and the families of missing persons, as had repeatedly been highlighted by the Secretary-General.  Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights had stressed that Turkey, through its occupation, bore responsibility for the human rights situation in Cyprus and had ruled, among other findings, that Turkey had violated 14 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.  No less than one-third of the Cypriot population aspired to a political settlement based on property rights and the right to return to their homes.

Among other issues of concern, he cited violations of the island’s cultural heritage that had been systematically carried out, including the destruction of more than 500 Orthodox churches and the smuggling-abroad of priceless treasures and works of art.  Turkey had also illegally transplanted more than 110,000 settlers to the island and had given them properties illegally seized from expelled Greek Cypriots.  This policy of colonization aimed to alter demographics on the island.  The Turkish side should also heed the international community’s call to terminate the agony of the families of missing persons on both sides.

The Cyprus issue had been too long on the United Nations’ agenda, he concluded.  In light of the European orientation of all parties to the issue, it was time to make positive progress to resolve the situation.  The international community must do its best to win this bet.

ABDULLA AL-SULAIT (Qatar) said that his Government had worked to strengthen the concept of human rights through the strengthening of democracy and the primacy of law.  Qatar was committed to the promotion and protection of human rights. Qatar’s Constitution stressed that all citizens were equal under the law and ensured the right of association and freedom of the press.  It guaranteed the right to education for all citizens and the freedom of belief and religion.

Qatar had taken several measures to bring into effect its commitments.  It had created a national human rights commission, which coordinated its activities with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as well as with a number of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.  It had recently participated in a regional workshop on human rights, where the right to development had been debated, along with other social and economic rights.  Qatar believed dialogue was the best means to ensure understanding between peoples, whatever their beliefs might be.  His country wished to increase its role within the United Nations efforts to promote and protect human rights.

MOHD RADZI ABDUL RAHMAN (Malaysia) said his Government had been encouraged by the attention and support pledged to the right to development by the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, but remained curious as to the High Commissioner’s understanding of that right.  Mainstreaming human rights into development efforts remained a concept distinct from mainstreaming the right to development in the promotion and protection of human rights.  Realization of the right to development constituted fulfilment of a process to enable people to realize the rights and freedoms set forth in the International Bill of Human Rights in their totality and as an integrated whole.  Realization of those interdependent rights effectively depended upon the availability of resources, and the access to goods and services, necessary to support the enjoyment of those rights.

The Special Rapporteur on the right to food had once more drawn attention to the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, he recalled.  The blatant and unabated violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by the occupying forces, including their right to food, must not be allowed to continue. The inhumane treatment and suffering inflicted upon the Palestinian people, and the destruction of their land and property, deserved the urgent attention of the international community.  Influential Member States must do their utmost to persuade Israel to take immediate steps to end violations of the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Expressing appreciation for the work of the Special Rapporteur on torture, he reiterated his country’s support for the special procedures as the “eyes and ears” of the Commission on Human Rights.  These special procedures played an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.  Their mandates must be conducted in conformity with the principles of fairness, objectivity and non-selectivity.  Independent experts must remain with their mandates.

RACHEL GROUX (Switzerland) said the Government welcomed the intention of the new High Commissioner on Human Rights to strengthen her Office’s work on the rule of law.  Switzerland had sought to implement reforms to improve the implementation of human rights mechanisms at the universal level.  It had distributed a document aimed at improving the functions of the Commission on Human Rights.  Within the United Nations system human rights was still playing a rather weak role.  There was a need to take into account the institutional imbalances.  Switzerland would welcome the implementation of an early warning, urgent response unit.

She said Switzerland condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and was greatly concerned that the rights of individuals were being threatened by the fight against terrorism.  The undermining of rights to a fair trial and the limited rights of people in detention were a cause for concern.  The fight against terrorism was being used to justify the violation of human rights.  The ban on torture was absolute including in the context of the efforts to combat terrorism. It was only through the respect for a ban on torture that the fight against terrorism could be effectively fought.

She added that Switzerland welcomed the growing number of private sector enterprises involved in the protection of human rights.  However, those efforts were being carried out in random ways, and Switzerland would support an open debate to enable it to better understand the role of private enterprises in human rights protection.

Turning to the death penalty, she said Switzerland considered the abolition of the death penalty as crucial to the promotion and protection of human rights. She welcomed the fact that a number of States had abolished the death penalty or introduced a moratorium on executions.

PATRICIA OLAMENDI (Mexico) said her country had opened itself to international monitoring of human rights and had received 15 visits by representatives of special procedures and other organs of the United Nations and the Organization of American States systems.  Given the recent diagnosis of the human rights situation in Mexico, a national programme on human rights had been drawn up and was to be submitted in December.  That programme had been drawn up in conjunction with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Mexican civil society.  That process had served as evidence that the international community had a role to play as an important tool for the strengthening of human rights at the national level.

Events of recent years had demonstrated the need for the international community to confront international challenges and to extend the protection of human rights, she stressed.  Terrorism represented a serious threat to the territorial integrity and security of States, yet the obligation to protect citizens from attack did not justify the suspension, violation or derogation of the human rights of persons subject to States’ jurisdiction.  Convinced that human rights must constitute an effective tool with which to fight terrorism, Mexico had supported draft resolutions related to the need constantly to respect human rights in the fight against terrorism.  Moreover, given the recent conclusion that the United Nations system remained incapable of dealing effectively with terrorism and human rights in a comprehensive manner, Mexico stressed the necessity of adopting approaches and elaborating proposals to find a viable solution for confronting terrorism while respecting human rights.

Another major concern for her country remained protection of the rights of all groups, particularly those most vulnerable, she said.  Mexico had promoted the elaboration of standards to protect such groups’ human rights, particularly for migrants and disabled persons.  Her country had always held that migration must not be allowed to impede the enjoyment of individuals’ human rights.  Moreover, the group requiring the greatest commitment and attention from the international community was disabled persons.  There must be progress without delay on achievement of a convention on the rights of disabled persons.

RODNEY LOPEZ CLEMENTE (Cuba) reiterated his Government’s view that the defence of sovereignty and respect for people’s right to self-determination must be the cornerstone of all international actions.  The diversity of cultures, religions, political and social systems constituted the world’s most important wealth.  However, the principles of objectivity and impartiality in the human rights approach continued to be absent in statements against human rights situations in the South.  He said Cuba considered such an approach unacceptable for achieving genuine cooperation for human rights.

He said the efforts of those delegations to demoralize Cuba could only demonstrate the manipulation of international cooperation for human rights. Freedom and democracy were not the exclusive heritage of the North.  Nobody had bestowed the countries of the North the power to judge the political and social organizations of other equally sovereign States.  Until objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity principles were the basis of the promotion and protection of human rights, the strengthening of international cooperation for human rights would not be attained.

SAMI ZEIDAN (Lebanon) said his country had embraced the values of pluralism, freedom, democracy and civil liberties to foster its salient recovery and prosperity, anchoring itself in human rights despite difficulties and challenges. Concerning the report of the Secretary-General on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights, he wished to express appreciation for the regional strategies of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Lebanon shared the Office’s aims of fostering dialogue between governments, civil society and researchers for improved protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development.

On the situation of human rights in Palestine, he reiterated support for the work of the Special Rapporteur, and for the need for a just, complete and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  That must be in accordance with United Nations resolutions, particularly regarding the just settlement of the refugee issue and guaranteeing the right to return for Palestinian people.

Among other issues, he reiterated his country’s commitment to upholding the human rights of women and its opposition to torture.  On human rights and terrorism, he said there should be no need to choose between the two.  The concern of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding State acts conducted within the fight against terrorism was reiterated. Efforts to explore new forms of migration management for facilitation of effective cooperation among States, and to elaborate the convention on the rights and dignity of disabled persons, were also welcomed.

FRANCIS BUTAGIRA (Uganda) said that for nearly 10 years the people of his country had been afflicted with all forms of human rights violations by a number of dictatorial regimes.  Since the National Resistance Movement had come to power in 1986, it had embarked on a new era that considered the promotion and protection of human rights as a priority by rebuilding respect for democracy and good governance.

He said human rights were being safeguarded in Uganda through the domestication of most international conventions related to human rights.  There were a number of protection systems in place to secure human rights, including an independent judiciary, the Uganda Human Rights Commission, legal courts, land tribunals, the National Parliament, and district councils.  Uganda was providing for freedom of expression and had encouraged an independent media.  It had also mainstreamed human rights into its poverty eradication plan.

He said his Government had relentlessly fought the rebel group known as the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), which had committed terrorist actions against the people of northern Uganda.  The LRA had ignored the Government’s call to dialogue. Uganda called on the international community to do more to support its Comprehensive Post-conflict Rehabilitation and Development Program for Northern Uganda.  It also appealed to all States to comply with any arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court for members of the LRA.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) said his Government had striven to protect and promote human rights through its Constitution and laws.  He reaffirmed that economic, social and cultural rights remained as important as civil and political rights, and that none of those rights could prosper without the others. Unfortunately, certain parties did not respect the rights to freedom and self-determination.

Recognition of the need to reform and rationalize the human rights bodies working within the United Nations did not mean they had exceeded their mandates, he said.  Moreover, the United Nations should serve as a centre for coordination of efforts and dialogue between States.  Politicization and application of selective approaches should be eschewed in favour of cooperation, and the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States should be respected, particularly regarding the relationship between developed and developing countries.  There should also be increased focus on the violations of human rights committed by those States defending human rights.

The recent Arab Summit had confirmed the importance of dealing, in a comprehensive way, with all regional issues, including respect for human rights, he said.  That would help to consolidate peace and overcome the consequences of colonization.  The Arab States had declared their determination to enshrine democracy and popular participation in decision-making and had reaffirmed the need to ensure the independence of the judiciary and to strengthen the role of various actors so as to ensure that all categories of people could participate equally in public life.

As had been highlighted by a number of Special Rapporteurs, he concluded, the lack of an internationally-agreed definition of terrorism had led to difficulties in addressing related issues.  Serious attempts must be made to provide such a definition, which must also distinguish between terrorism as an odious crime and the right to fight against occupation, which had been guaranteed by the United Nations Charter.

DZIUNIK AGHAJANIAN (Armenia) said genocide, one of the most horrendous crimes against humanity, was a decades-old challenge that the international community had yet to eliminate.  Her Government welcomed the appointment by the Secretary-General of a Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and fully supported the discharge of his mandate.  It also hoped an early-warning mechanism could be elaborated to allow for the prevention of further recurrences of genocide.

She stressed that the fight against terrorism should enhance, rather than undermine, the rule of law and respect for fundamental freedoms.  Armenia considered the appointment of the Independent expert for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism as timely and necessary in helping the international community to develop a balanced approach in the war against terrorism.

Noting a well-established fact that respect for human rights was a viable tool for promoting stability and security by decreasing the likelihood of violent conflict, she said basic freedoms were not universally guaranteed in her region. In a region like the South Caucasus, with a complicated ethnic patchwork that had given rise to various conflicts, respect for the rule of law and human rights was especially significant.

Regarding the information provided by Azerbaijan in the Secretary-General’s report, she said the sad situation Azerbaijan had referred to in the report was a result of its own aggression against the people of Nagorno Karabakh in their legitimate quest for self-determination.  Her delegation was deeply disappointed with the process of preparation of the report.

MBALEMBOU PATO (Togo) said human rights remained a subject of universal concern; the relationship of human rights to the human being was the same as that of oxygen to the organism.  Every individual had a need for freedom, particularly the people of developing countries, as the freedom of mind and body gave individuals greater ability to improve their situations.

His country had guaranteed the right to freedom, he said, as evidenced by the number of political parties working freely in Togo.  The rights of all citizens to life and freedom, access to education and the ability to strike, among other rights, had been affirmed.  As the first country in Africa to create a national human rights commission, Togo remained convinced that the defence and promotion of human rights must go beyond words in order to ensure that all individuals fully enjoyed their rights.

As ignorance remained one of the chief obstacles to promotion and protection of human rights, particular attention had been given to training and awareness-raising in his country, he said.  Togo had undertaken a large-scale training programme for law enforcement and judicial officials and had incorporated human rights training at various educational levels.  The Government had also adopted a press code, which took into account the need to freely express one’s opinion and allowed journalists and others working in information to express that right freely.  Nationally, the media now comprised more than 30 private newspapers, 20 radio stations and seven television stations.

The Togolese family code placed particular emphasis on rights of children and women, he affirmed.  Regarding prison reform, 500 common law prisoners had been freed, and there had been attempts to redress the situation of individuals who had suffered from judicial irregularities.  Given the interdependence of economic, social and cultural rights with civil and political rights, he concluded, the international community must address the issue of sanctions, which had often been implemented arbitrarily. Sanctions had been imposed on his country even though no country remained totally free from human rights violations.

SAMINA NAZ (Bangladesh) said her Government’s commitment to promoting and protecting human rights in her country and around the globe was unflinching.  The Bangladesh Constitution embodied the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Bangladesh believed development in any society could best take place against a matrix of democracy, pluralism, good governance, human rights, gender justice and women’s empowerment.  Bangladesh was undergoing a societal transformation by adhering to those values and upholding human rights.

She said her Government recognized that national institutions could play a significant role in efforts to realize good governance and respect for human rights.  Toward this end it had set up an independent National Human Rights Commission that aimed to ensure transparency and accountability.  It had also established the office of an Ombudsman and an independent anti-corruption commission.  There was still much that remained to be done in transforming commitments into concrete actions, but Bangladesh was on the right track to meet the challenges of realizing in full the rights and freedoms of its people.

ELEYDA GARCIA-MATOS (Venezuela) said her country had undertaken to ensure an inclusive respect for human rights.  The Constitution remained one of the most modern regarding human rights.  Moreover, most international human rights instruments had been ratified and endowed with Constitutional status.  Respect for human rights constituted the backbone of the Venezuelan system, and the Government had ensured full respect for human rights, which constituted a historic commitment.

The guidelines guaranteeing economic and political rights nationally included an irrevocable revocation of oppression, she said.  The freedoms of opinion, expression and association had been ensured, which constituted an unprecedented step in the nation’s history.  Moreover, the focus of the revolutionary process continued to rest upon ending the era of corruption and impunity in the judicial system.  Public defence had been consecrated in the Constitution and judicial modernization continued to advance.

Gender equality had been reaffirmed nationally, she added, and applied to all areas of political, social and family life.  Women’s value as domestic workers had been recognized, and international human rights instruments on women’s rights had been signed and ratified.  Moreover, to guarantee and confront social exclusion, the Government had implemented a set of social programmes, which called for a strategic offensive to reduce poverty and improve the standard of living. The right to health had been constitutionally guaranteed, and several national literacy strategies had been implemented to help the socially-excluded. There had also been initiatives to provide adequate food to socially-excluded people.

The representative of Myanmar, exercising the right of reply, said the accusations made yesterday in the statements by Canada, Australia and New Zealand. were unfounded and were made for the sake of a political agenda.

Statements in the Exercise of Right of Reply

Myanmar was committed to the promotion and protection of human rights she said.  This was manifested in numerous actions her Government had taken.  It had established an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) office in Myanmar, a human rights committee, and a liaison office for the International Labour Organization (ILO).  It had introduced human rights curricula in the schools, and had initiated development programmes for the rehabilitation of border areas that included strengthening efforts to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.  It had implemented a national health plan as well as a plan to make education available to everybody.  Regarding the issue of child soldiers, Myanmar law did not allow anybody below 18 years old to be recruited into the army.  A committee had been established to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers.  Legislative measures had also been adopted to eliminate the practice of child labour.

She said it had become the practice of certain countries to use the issue of human rights to promote their political agenda.  Her Government very much regretted this and hoped there could be genuine efforts to promote and protect human rights.

Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Turkey said he had not been surprised by the statements of the Greek Cypriot and Greek representatives.  While appreciating that the representative of Greece had limited himself to addressing the situation of human rights in Cyprus, he said the statement had contained false allegations and distortions.  It had not reflected recent developments in the island.

The Greek statement overlooked the fact that the Cyprus issue had not begun with the arrival of Turkish troops, but with the destruction of the partnership agreement on Christmas Eve 1963 he said.  The United Nations’ archives were full of accounts of violations suffered by Turkish Cypriots.  It was upon the right-wing coup by Greek Cypriots that Turkey had had no choice but to intervene to protect Turkish Cypriots.  These realities had been long forgotten.  Moreover, human rights violations continued to be perpetrated against Turkish Cypriots.

It was time to look ahead and solve “this intractable problem”, he said.  Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots had supported the Annan plan.  The Turkish Cypriot side had voted in its favour, while the Greek Cypriot side had overwhelmingly rejected it.  He also recalled the Secretary-General’s statement upon the defeat of the plan, which had expressed the view that the plan remained a balanced basis for resolution of the situation.

The representative of Israel, exercising the right of reply, said the Committee should take a more critical approach to the one-sided report of Special Rapporteur John Dugard.  By ignoring any hint of corruption and mismanagement and incitement to violence, his report did not serve the cause of the Palestinian people and actually perpetuated the abuse of human rights.  Israel was committed to the Road Map as the only way to achieve a two-state solution and for the Israelis and Palestinian people to live side by side in peace and security. Terrorist acts against the Israeli people should have long ago been labelled as crimes against humanity and war crimes of the gravest form.  He hoped the Palestinians would seize the opportunity offered by Israel’s decision to disengage from the Gaza Strip to engage in dialogue and put an end to the violence.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Azerbaijan said the Armenian delegation had once more tried to mislead the Committee by portraying a violent terrorist separatist group as expressing a legal right to self-determination.

Summarizing the origins of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, he noted that the municipality of Nagorno-Karabakh had adopted a decision to petition both the Armenian and Azerbaijani parliaments for transfer from Azerbaijan to Armenia while they were both still members of the Soviet Union.  However, the procedure for such a change had been stipulated by the Soviet Union and could not occur without the consent of the entire republic to the transfer.  The Parliament of Azerbaijan had rejected the request.  However, on several later occasions the Armenian Parliament had adopted decisions to include and incorporate the Nagorno-Karabakh region within its own borders.  Before independence and the monitoring of the conflict by international organizations, the Soviet Union had played the role of arbiter to the conflict.  The highest legislative body had considered the situation and had confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and found the decisions of Armenia and the local Nagorno-Karabakh parliament unconstitutional.

Regarding the right of a people to self-determination, he recalled that international law had stipulated that this right could only be realized peacefully and in accordance with the principle of territorial integrity.  This did not imply a right of unilateral secession, which could lead to territorial disintegration. Moreover, a people could only exercise their right to self-determination once; Armenians had already done so within the borders of contemporary Armenia.

The representative of Cyprus said the statement by the representative of Turkey was an attempt to divert attention from the essence of the problem.  If the division of Cyprus persisted, it was because Turkey continued to violate international law.  The decisions of the Security Council and other international bodies spoke for themselves.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Greece said the representative of Turkey had made a renewed effort to divert attention from his country’s heavy responsibility regarding the Cyprus issue and had reiterated some all-too-well-known allegations against Greece.  The Greek statement had provided a brief summary of the human rights situation in Cyprus, as repeatedly confirmed by the international community through bodies of the United Nations and judgments of international judicial bodies.

The observer of Palestine, exercising the right of reply, said Israel should reconsider speaking of the Road Map as if it were acting in compliance with it. Israel continued to commit illegal acts that were contrary to the Road Map and had registered 14 reservations to it.  It continued to kill Palestinian people and to destroy and confiscate Palestinian land.  Its Gaza disengagement plan was, as one Israeli official had called it, a “freezing process” that would not lead to a solution.  The only answer was simply for Israel to end its occupation and to end the confiscation of Palestinian land.  The first suicide bombing did not occur until 27 years after the occupation.  Everything must be put in context of Israel’s brutal occupation.  It was critical to understand the root causes of the problem if there was to be a solution.  There would be no solution until Israel recognized the rights of the Palestinian people for full protection under the rule of law.

Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Armenia thanked the representative of Azerbaijan for his sincere attempt to present the legal origins of the conflict between the two countries.  However, the question she had posed had asked what legal grounds could be invented to present an intrastate conflict as a unilateral coercive measure.

* *** *