COMMISSION APPROVES SIX MEASURES ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

COMMISSION APPROVES SIX MEASURES ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Debate Continues on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 16 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights adopted six measures this afternoon on economic, social and cultural rights, ranging from support for the right to education to the provision of affordable medication for persons suffering from HIV/AIDS and other pandemics.

In a resolution on the right to education, adopted by consensus, the Commission urged all States to give full effect to the right to education and to guarantee that this right was recognized and exercised without discrimination of any kind.  It also decided to extend for three years the mandate of its Special Rapporteur on the topic.

In a resolution on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, adopted by consensus, the Commission, among other things, called upon States to develop and implement national strategies to realize access for all to prevention-related goods, services and information, as well as to comprehensive treatment, care and support for all individuals infected and affected by such pandemics.

In a resolution on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and 1 opposed, the Commission urged States to take steps to the maximum of their available resources to achieve this right for everyone; called upon the international community to continue to assist the developing countries in promoting the full realization of this right; and called upon States to guarantee this right would be exercised without discrimination of any kind.

In a resolution recommended by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on forced evictions, adopted by a roll-call vote of 45 in favour and 1 opposed, with 7 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that the practice of forced evictions constituted a gross violation of a broad range of human rights and strongly urged governments to undertake immediately measures aimed at eliminating the practice of forced evictions.

Two other measures proposed by the Subcommission were adopted:  one to appoint a Sub-Commission Expert as Special Rapporteur to carry out a study on corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights; and one calling for publication in all United Nations languages of a Subcommission study on globalization and its impact on human rights.

The Commission also carried on this afternoon with the general debate under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of human rights.  National delegations addressed such topics as protecting human rights defenders and combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

A representative of Norway said that in all parts of the world, human rights defenders were facing new challenges and often even greater personal insecurity, and that some of the measures taken by Governments in recent years, often in the name of security and counter-terrorism, had severely limited the political space in which human rights defenders operated.

Thomas Hammarberg, Chairperson of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, briefed the Commission on the Fund’s activities.

Contributing to substantive debate at the afternoon meeting were representatives of Burkina Faso, Ireland, Cuba, United Kingdom (speaking on behalf of Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden), Norway, Kuwait, Poland, Nicaragua, Switzerland, Singapore, the United Nations Development Programme, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Angola, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The United States and Cuba spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Commission will reconvene at 9 a.m. on Monday, 19 April, for a day of extended meetings to continue without pause until 6 p.m.  After concluding its general debate on the promotion and protection of human rights, the Commission is expected to start its consideration of advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights.  It will also take action on resolutions and decisions tabled under the Commission’s agenda item on civil and political rights.

Action on Resolutions and Decisions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In action on draft resolution L.38, on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission decided, by a separate vote on each sub-paragraph, to retain operative paragraph 14 of the resolution, which addressed the question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

It was then announced that, due to the application of the 24-hour rule on a revision to E/CN.4/2004/L.67, which had been proposed by the co-sponsors, the consideration of draft resolution L.38 would be postponed until Monday, 19 April.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said Pakistan would vote in favour of the deletion of the sub-paragraphs because the individuals invited to appear before the Working Group therein had small, limited mandates.  Pakistan had been particularly struck by the individuals who had been invited from the International Labour Office, and the complaints they had communicated to the Working Group, each of which had targeted developing countries.  Yet the areas in which these individuals worked had much to do with the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights.  The paragraph risked turning a group concerned with economic, social and cultural rights into one concerned with civil and political rights.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba would continue to vote against the deletion of the sub-paragraphs as they were particularly relevant to strengthening the work of the Working Group.  However, Cuba tended to agree with the statement of the Representative of Pakistan.  The scope envisaged in sub-paragraph (d) was too limited.  In no way could Cuba support the maintenance of the sub-paragraph, and it would vote in favour of its deletion.

TURKI AL MADI (Saudi Arabia) said Saudi Arabia too would vote in favour of the sub-paragraph’s elimination as it did not reflect the desires or needs of developing countries.  Through its provisions, the developing countries would be marginalized to a great extent.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said the purpose of the present discussion was to find ways and means of promoting economic, social and cultural rights.  Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) should be retained, but (c) and (d) were counterproductive and would undermine the work of the Working Group.  India would vote in favour of their deletion.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.39) on the right to education, adopted by consensus as orally amended, the Commission urged all States to give full effect to the right to education and to guarantee that this right was recognized and exercised without discrimination of any kind; to take all appropriate measures to eliminate obstacles limited effective access to education, notably by girls, including pregnant girls, children living in rural areas, children belonging to minority groups, indigenous children, migrant children, refugee children, internally displaced children, children affected by armed conflicts, children with disabilities, children affected by infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS, sexually exploited children, children deprived of their liberty, children living in the street, working children and orphaned children; to improve all aspects of the quality of education; to promote the renewal and expansion of basic formal education of good quality; to mainstream human rights education in educational activities; to enhance the status, morale and professionalism of teachers; to recognize and promote lifelong learning for all; to ensure progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity that primary education was compulsory, accessible, and available free to all; to adopt necessary measures to close the gap between the school-leaving age and the minimum age for employment; to adopt effective measures to encourage regular attendance at school and reduce dropout rates; to support domestic literacy programmes; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on education for a period of three years.

Mr. PURI (India) said that with the additional amendment, this was now a very good resolution on an important subject.  Education for children between the ages of 6 to 14 was a fundamental right in India.  The global community was committed to the target of ensuring education for all by 2015, and all countries should cooperate to ensure that children everywhere were guaranteed at least primary education.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.40) on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon States to consider taking into account the guidelines elaborated at the Second International Consultation on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, as well as the revision of guideline 6 at the Third International Consultation; called upon States to develop and implement national strategies to realize access for all to prevention-related goods, services and information, as well as to comprehensive treatment, care and support for all individuals infected and affected by such pandemics; to establish or strengthen national health and social infrastructures and health-care systems; affirmed the importance of public health interests in both pharmaceutical and health policies; called upon States to pursue policies to promote the availability, in sufficient quantities, of pharmaceutical products and medical technologies used to treat pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria or the most common opportunistic infections that accompanied them; to promote the accessibility and affordability for all without discrimination, of such products and medical technologies; and to promote the assurance that such pharmaceutical products or technologies were scientifically and medically appropriate and of good quality.

The Commission called upon States to refrain from taking measures which would deny or limit equal access to such products or technologies; to adopt measures to safeguard access; to address factors affecting the provision of drugs related to the treatment of pandemics; to take all appropriate measures to promote research and development of new and more effective products and diagnostic tools; to facilitate access in other countries to such products and technologies; to ensure that their actions as members of international organizations took due account of the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of health; urged States to consider, whenever necessary, adapting national legislation to use to the full the flexibilities contained in the TRIPS agreement; called upon States and other donors to cooperate in supporting the initiative launched jointly by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS with the aim of providing antiretroviral therapy to 3 million people in the developing world by 2005; called upon UNAIDS to mobilize further resources to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic and upon all Governments to take measures to ensure that the necessary resources were made available to UNAIDS; called upon States to ensure that those at risk of contracting malaria benefited from the most suitable combination of personal and community protective measures; and called upon States to provide the necessary support for the World Health Organization’s “Roll Back Malaria” and “Stop TB” partnerships in ongoing measures to combat malaria and tuberculosis.

DAVID HOHMAN (United States) said this was a very important resolution, but the United States was in the same position as last year.  Because the United States had not ratified the relevant covenant, it could not join the consensus on a draft resolution that included reference to it.  It urged countries to stick to the agreed language on draft resolutions so as to avoid this difficulty.  As for preambular paragraph 2, an insertion regarding progressive realization had been suggested, but this had been rejected. The fact needed to be indicated clearly in the draft resolution.  A right that should be progressively realized should not be cast as a legal right.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.41) on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and 1 opposed, and as orally revised, the Commission urged States to take steps to the maximum of their available resources to achieve this right for everyone; called upon the international community to continue to assist the developing countries in promoting the full realization of this right; called upon States to guarantee this right would be exercised without discrimination of any kind; invited States to consider signing and ratifying the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; called upon States to pay special attention to the situation of vulnerable groups; to place a gender perspective at the centre of all policies and programmes affecting women’s health; to protect and promote sexual and reproductive health; and considered it to be of the utmost importance to enhance all States’ efforts to prevent violence that caused physical or mental injury.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (52):  Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (1):  United States.

Abstentions (0):  None.

NAELA GABR (Egypt) said Egypt was grateful for the work done by Brazil, as this was an important resolution.  Egypt had supported all resolutions on this subject.  Egypt would vote in favour of the resolution, but reminded all of the reservations made by its delegation and others concerning the continuance of the work of the Special Rapporteur.

ILHAM SHANTER (Sudan) said the resolution was important and had been supported in previous years.  The statement of Egypt was supported, and Sudan, while supporting the draft resolution, had several concerns regarding the report presented by the Special Rapporteur, especially with regard to the introduction of new elements that had not been agreed before under international human rights law.  For this reason, Sudan would vote in favour of eliminating operational paragraph 14 and in favour of the resolution as a whole.

In a resolution recommended by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on forced evictions, adopted by a roll-call vote of 45 in favour and 1 opposed, with 7 abstentions, and as amended, the Commission reaffirmed that the practice of forced evictions constituted a gross violation of a broad range of human rights; strongly urged Governments to undertake immediately measures, at all levels, aimed at eliminating the practice of forced evictions; also strongly urged Governments to protect all persons who were currently threatened with forced evictions; recommended that all Governments provide immediate restitution, compensation and/or sufficient alternative accommodation or land to persons and communities that have been forcibly evicted, following mutually satisfactory negotiations; recommended that all Governments ensure that any eviction that was otherwise deemed lawful was carried out in a manner that did not violate human rights; reminded all international financial, trade, development and other related institutions and agencies to take fully into account the views expressed in the present resolution; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to give due attention to forced evictions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (45):  Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (1):  United States.

Abstentions (7):  Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

PETER MAXWELL HEYWARD (Australia) said Australia recognized that the practice of forced eviction could involve multiple violations of human rights.  The amendment of the United Kingdom (L.26) addressed some of Australia’s concerns, but others still remained relating to the consistency of the text and to domestic law.  That the text came from the Sub-Commission showed how important the issue was, but had it come under consideration by Commission members, it would have been subject to greater consensus.  The Sub-Commission should not do such things in the future.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the Australian proposal would eliminate the right to return of Palestinian refugees who had been separated from their homes, and of indigenous populations claiming restitution of their lands. 

In a measure on corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission endorsed the decision of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Christy Mbonu as Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the topic.

In a measure on globalization and its impact on human rights, the Commission decided to approve, by a roll-call vote of 51 in favour and none opposed, with 2 abstentions, the request of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on the topic be published in the official languages of the United Nations.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (51):  Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (0):  None.

Abstentions (2):  Australia and United States

Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said globalization was an emerging problem.  The Sub-Commission had brought to the attention of the Commission documents and studies which were made available to all in many languages.  Cuba would vote in favour of the Sub-Commission decision on globalization.

Presentation of Report on Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in Field of Human Rights

THOMAS HAMMARBERG, Chairperson of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, said that today the Fund had a wide number of projects for which it provided support.  It had moved from reviewing individual projects to assessing the global issues.  A review of the whole programme of technical cooperation had been carried out last year, and changes had begun to be implemented. Technical cooperation would continue to develop in terms of human rights expertise, and would continue to grow, although its resources remained limited.  The Office of the High Commissioner planned to work on improving the level of strategic programming as the next step after the review.  The Board intended to seek opportunities to interact directly with the treaty bodies and special procedures, and was also examining further cooperation with the United Nations as a whole and with United Nations country teams.

There was improved capacity within the Office for project development and implementation.  Expenditures over the last two years had almost doubled the amount of the previous biennium, exceeding $ 20 million.  While contributions had increased, there was an urgent need for additional funding.  In 2003, the Office had established a specialized unit dedicated to technical cooperation.  The programme appreciated the constructive support and financial support provided by Member States, as this was what had allowed it to continue to function and grow. 

General Debate on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

MOUSSA B. NEBIE (Burkina Faso) said there was particular interest in the issue of the promotion and protection of human rights given the state of international pacts relating to human rights, the situation of human rights defenders, information and education, and the issues of science and the environment.  The efforts of the international community to adopt rules of protection for human rights and for those persons who dedicated themselves to the implementation of those rules, in particular human rights defenders, should be applauded.  More and more, the organizations of civil society collaborated and participated directly in decisions and actions relating to civic life, the protection of public freedoms, and development.  Further, civil society was being given an increasingly important role in the approach taken to development, which interacted closely with human rights.

International partnership was an important factor for the effective implementation of human rights, and the international community and the Commission should be aware of the urgency and the need to reinforce international cooperation in the field of human rights.  This cooperation, to be efficient, should be multifaceted and opportunistic.  There should be solidarity by all actors who worked for the implementation of human rights.

RICHARD FALLON (Ireland) said that with regard to the cases of Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, two lawyers who were murdered in Northern Ireland some years ago, and whose cases had been addressed by the appropriate special procedure of the Commission, the British Government had published reports on these murders, and the Government of Ireland welcomed these and the announcement that public inquiries would be held.

The Government of Ireland also expressed disappointment that the British Government had decided to delay action on other recommendations of the presiding Judge.  The families of those murdered were entitled to the timely establishment of public inquiries as had been recommended, and the Government of Ireland was strongly of the view that these should be held as soon as possible.  It was hoped that the appropriate special procedure of the Commission would continue to give attention to the case of Mr. Finucane.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said why deceive the international community? The principles of objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity were, for the sizeable part of the countries of the industrial North, just phoney slogans produced to meet the requirements of their domestic policies and to embellish their schemes for international domination.  With the workings of the hegemonic superpower -- that did not care for the credibility of the Commission, let alone its ability as a forum for the promotion of just and truly universal consensus -- one was witnessing the irremediable destruction of the Commission as a place for cooperation and dialogue.

Endless and growing was the list of resolutions on agenda item 9, motivated out of the spurious interests who sought geo-political domination.  These allowed the imperialist superpower and their main allies of the "coalition of the willing" to turn the Commission into a sort of inquisition tribunal that ensured the "pre-emptive conviction" of those who later -- also pre-emptively -- would receive the fire of their bombs, bombs which eventually had not proved to be so intelligent or effective enough to defeat the resistance of the peoples attacked. Cuba was worried by the process of the United States’ intent to institutionalize a so-called "Community of Democracies" that would act under United States control and instructions as a pressure and lobby group for its sinister interests of domination.  Cuba attached great importance to the issue of human rights defenders.  No one deserved greater respect, support and protection than those who devoted and risked their lives to creating a better world.  The most dangerous and aggressive fundamentalism nowadays was that of the neo-fascist and military groups that had taken control of the United States Government. They had given themselves the messianic role to impose upon the world their political, economic and military dictatorship.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), speaking on behalf of Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden, said the decision by Brazil to request a postponement of the consideration of the draft resolution on the issue of human rights and sexual orientation to the sixty-first session of the Commission had been noted.  Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation occurred all over the world, and the universal principle that all human beings were equal in dignity and rights and that all were entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration should be firmly upheld.

Non-discrimination, including on the grounds of sexual orientation, was a vital matter, and consideration of the issue by the Commission would constitute a step towards the recognition that the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons should not be hindered in any way on grounds of sexual orientation.  In addition to efforts undertaken by States, the role of civil society in raising the issue’s profile and in increasing understanding of its importance should be noted.  The consideration of the issue during the next Commission session was anticipated and support was expressed for Brazil’s efforts to build consensus on the topic.

ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said human rights defenders worldwide had been threatened, intimidated and submitted to arbitrary detention.  Many had disappeared, while others had been tortured and killed.  That was a marked and very worrying trend.  In all parts of the world, human rights defenders were facing new challenges and often even greater personal insecurity.  Some of the measures taken by Governments in recent years, often in the name of security and counter-terrorism, had severely limited the political space in which human rights defenders operated.  In some cases, security concerns had been abused in order to target defenders. A number of reports had noted an erosion of States' commitment to upholding international human rights standards.  And yet, such short-term considerations might actually be counter-productive in addressing terrorism. 

Human rights defenders contributed to the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.  They promoted justice, human dignity and the rule of law.  They supported victims in environments of widespread human rights abuse.  By doing so, they also enhanced international peace and security and helped to combat terrorism at its very roots.  One could not build peace and security without respect for human rights.  The international community should support human rights defenders.  In her report to the Commission, the Special Representative on human right defenders had regretted the large number of requests for invitations she had made that had not received a positive response.  Norway called upon all States to provide the Special Representative with access and support so that she could fulfil her mandate even more effectively.

ABDULLAH AL-ASKAR (Kuwait) said Kuwait firmly believed in the importance of fighting impunity for all human rights violations, and in the importance of prosecuting those who perpetrated violations, as the lack of this seemed to encourage such practices.  The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had seen gross violations of human rights by the invading forces which were documented by the Special Rapporteur on Occupied Kuwait and the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, in particular in his last report, which condemned the regime for its mass executions of Kuwaitis.

Kuwait, aspiring to the global objectives aspired to by the international community and with the aim of combating impunity and promoting and protecting of human rights, had collected information on these violations, and hoped the perpetrators of these crimes would be brought to justice, as this would restore victims’ rights and their dignity.

KRYSTYNA ZUREK (Poland) said there was no single and exhaustive definition of good governance, and rightly so.  The concept was multifaceted.  However, it was widely recognized that good governance was about effective institutions and rules, and also about protecting human rights, and about promoting the widest possible participation in institutions and rules that affected people’s lives.  It was also about more equitable distribution of economic and social goals or the dreams that all strove to achieve.  Good governance was not about how to govern; it was more about creating conditions in which people would be in a position to govern themselves in the most effective way.

It was fair to say that the promotion of the rule of law constituted an important part of the concept of good governance.  To create a well-governed environment, work should be done to make sure that all human rights were fully embraced by legal systems and that all human rights instruments were ratified and implemented in every day practice.  Further, a blind eye should not be turned to the necessity of increasing legal protections for the human rights of the poor, marginalized groups and other vulnerable people, for this was an important yardstick of good governance.

EDUARDO CASTILLO PEREIRA (Nicaragua) said the people and Government of Nicaragua had received the news of the Madrid bombings of 11 March with deep concern and great consternation.  The attacks were a contravention of the sacred principles and standards of international human rights.  Nicaragua condemned such terrorist acts.  International terrorism had become the challenge of the twenty-first century.  Nicaragua was committed to the implementation of the rights to life, freedom and security of person.  To fight against international terrorism, the democratic process in each country should be strengthened.  Solid democratic institutions, people with solid civic traditions, Governments respectful of international human rights, and widespread commitment to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter were the best guarantees for defeating terrorism.

At the national level, Nicaragua had adopted in 2001 a national plan against terrorism and related crimes.  At the regional level, the Central American countries had adopted a declaration condemning terrorism on 19 September 2001.   The declaration strongly condemned acts of terrorism, whatever their form or manifestation, saying they constituted a crime against humanity and threatened international peace and security.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said Switzerland deplored the fact that half the communications sent by the Special Representative on human rights defenders to States went unanswered.  Dialogue was essential to the Special Representative’s efforts to assess the facts in a balanced and objective manner.  Moreover, the verbal hostility expressed against human rights defenders by some States, particularly in the context of the fight against terrorism, and the tendency to tolerate violations committed against them, constituted a blank check for future human rights violations.

It was essential to end immediately such campaigns of denigration and impunity in order to maintain the credibility of the international community’s engagement in the protection of human rights defenders.  All States should ensure the conformity of national legislation with the terms of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.  States also should abolish the death penalty as soon as possible.  Finally, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, it was worrisome to see discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Commission should undertake consideration of this issue and should invite its special procedures and monitoring bodies to take special consideration of it.

VANU GOPALA MENON (Singapore) said the question of the death penalty had been debated at great length for many years and in many forums.  The European Union argued that capital punishment constituted a violation of international human rights standards, but it was not clear how this conclusion could be drawn from existing international law.  Key international human rights instruments did not proscribe the use of the death penalty as, for example, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights stated that the death sentence “may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.”  There was no international consensus on whether the death penalty constituted a violation of human rights.  States retained the right to decide for themselves whether and when to abolish the death penalty.  European Union States, having decided to abolish the death penalty, were not entitled to demand that all other States follow suit.

Regional standards of human rights developed in the late twentieth century could not, and should not, be imposed universally and arbitrarily on others, without their consent.  Singapore imposed the death penalty for only the most serious crimes, and it made no apologies for its system.  The country’s criminal justice system had been widely acknowledged as fair and transparent, and Singapore was one of the safest places in the world in which to live and work.  Instead of trying to impose a diktat based on false claims of universality, a constructive approach should be engaged in and consensus sought in a gradually evolving process.  That was the best way to promote genuine respect for and compliance with truly universal human rights.

PATRICK VAN WEERELT, of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said nearly two thirds of the world’s people today lived in nominally democratic countries.  There had been rapid progress for many countries, and millions of citizens, particularly in East Asia, were economically better off as a result. However, it was equally true that more than a billion people were living in absolute poverty.  Another trend had been witnessed in many countries that had made great strides in democratization over the recent decades; the whole environment and political concept of democracy had come under threat due to increased poverty, crime, corruption and distrust in political processes and leaders.

The critical importance of democratic governance for development was therefore unclear.  In the area of democratic dialogue, the UNDP helped to broker engagement between the various stakeholders at national and subnational levels, sometimes in delicate political negotiations.  There were no short cuts to good governance.  Entrenching democracy was a process, not an event.

ZEINEP SHAIMERGENOVA (Kyrgyzstan) said the country attached great importance to international norms and continued to respect them.  On 24 March 2004, the country's President had taken action to reduce the number of crimes leading to the death penalty.  The new law maintained only three articles from the previous law that might entail capital punishment.  Those crimes were homicidal acts with aggravating circumstances, rape, and genocide.  All death sentences were subject to appeal to higher courts.  Only the President could approve the execution of any death sentence.

The President was also bestowed with the power to commute death sentences to any other form of detention by using his pardon procedure.  The law prohibited the use of the death penalty against women and children.

PIO SCHURTI (Liechtenstein) said developments in different countries showed that there was no inherent contradiction between reconciliation and fighting impunity.  There was no need to forego prosecution in order to facilitate reconciliation.  More and more, truth and reconciliation commissions, prosecution and reparation were being established as complementary, each playing its own significant role in achieving justice and lasting peace.  It had also emerged that international efforts to combat impunity had inspired national Governments to take significant measures to hold perpetrators to account in national courts.

The postponement of the discussion of a resolution on human rights and sexual orientation for another year was to be regretted.  Fundamental human rights were violated with impunity for reasons of sexual orientation in all regions of the world, and the principle of the universality of human rights made it clear that the fundamental rights of any person should be protected. Discrimination and persecution on grounds of sexual orientation were therefore as unacceptable as any other discrimination outlawed by the international community.  Existing human rights law struck a balance between the security needs of States and human rights standards.  Violating human rights in the name of fighting terrorism was counterproductive, as it ultimately played into the hands of terrorist groups. 

CLIVE PEARSON (New Zealand) said nearly 60 years ago, Governments had joined together to place human rights at the forefront of international relations.  The result was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which it was declared that all human beings were equal in dignity and in rights.  The principle of non-discrimination lay at the heart of the Declaration and of all the human rights standards that had followed.  It was the distillation of the values inherent in all philosophical traditions and religious beliefs.

Discrimination took place in all too many countries, and the international community should not pretend the contrary, as this would be a silence that allowed human rights abuses to flourish, a silence that would allow misunderstanding and mistrust to grow into fear, intolerance and discrimination.  The United Nations had been silent on sexual orientation for too long, and it was time to break that silence.  A failure to speak out could only be interpreted as condoning discrimination and prejudice.  This was a difficult and complex issue, but there should be no compromise on the equality and dignity and human rights of all people.  It was time to start talking.

VIRGILIO MARQUES DE FARIA (Angola) said that after the peace process in the country, Angola had achieved an improvement in the quality of life and the extension of its juridical order to the nation.  Angola reiterated its support for the United Nations, believing that instability in the world, particularly in Africa, Central America, the Middle East and more recently in Europe, would only be resolved in a multilateral environment, with the United Nations playing a central role.  Angola was now undertaking constitutional reform with the aim of guaranteeing fundamental rights for its citizens through the effective implementation of international human rights conventions.  Work was also under way for significant reform of the country's penal code.  At the international level, Angola was planning to ratify remaining international conventions on human rights and to strengthen its participation in international forums.

The Government of Angola was making further efforts at reconstruction and national reconciliation by designing programmes to improve the quality of life of its citizens.  The Government was also taking measures in the political and institutional sphere, as well as in the economic and social areas, to ensure fulfilment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the provisions of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

MYRIAM KARELA, of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said UNESCO had long-standing experience in the field of human rights education, a domain in which it had been active since its inception.  Its linked activities were based on various normative instruments adopted by the organization and by the United Nations, and since 1995 these had been placed within the framework of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education.  Member States had recognized human rights education as one of the strategic priorities for action and as a key element for the promotion of the right to quality education.  Human rights education itself was a human right within the framework of the fulfilment of the right of the education.

In today’s world, it was crucial to address human rights education through a holistic perspective.  Human rights education should therefore be considered as fundamental for the democratization of education systems, in the context of national education reforms, with a view to integrating the learning and practice of human rights.  Human rights education implied the learning as well as the practice of human rights, and therefore should not be theoretical only but should provide opportunities for learners to develop and practice actively the skills needed to respect human rights and democracy.

Right of Reply

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said that during the course of the Commission’s current session, a number of acts of threat and intimidation had been witnessed against the United States and its supporters by the Cuban delegation and its associates.  On 30 March, a member of the United States delegation had been told that he would pay a high price for his actions and the Cubans would be the ones to make him pay.  An American delegate out jogging had been approached by a member of the Cuban delegation and told to watch out, as Cuba was keeping an eye on him.  Finally, yesterday there had been a physical attack against a member of the United States delegation by a member of the Cuban delegation outside this very room.  Attacking from behind, the Cuban delegate had had to be restrained by security guards.  Such acts showed disrespect for the Commission and its members, but were fully consistent with the policy of the Cuban regime under Fidel Castro.

The truth was that the Commission had yesterday adopted a resolution on Cuba and had then witnessed yet another attempt at intimidation by the Cuban delegation, which had tabled a resolution aimed against the United States.  All would agree that the United States’ resolution had been squarely within the parameters of the Commission’s body of work and within the parameters of the agenda item on civil and political rights.  The Cuban resolution was a pure and simple reprisal and an attempt to inflict “guerrilla theatre” upon the Commission.  The acts of the Cuban delegation should be rejected and Cuba should be asked to show respect for the delegates of the United States.

MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA CASEIRO (Cuba) said Cuba had listened with astonishment to right of reply of the United States.  Terrorists had been given accreditation to participate in the work of the Commission.  Some accredited individuals had been allowed to enter the premises of the United Nations to carry out political activities.  The United States delegation was not happy with the result of yesterday's voting. The Cuban delegation had complained officially about yesterday's incident.  Provocateurs had been accredited to the Commission and had used United States television channels.  The Cuban delegation did not accept the accreditation of terrorists to the Commission.

Mr. WILLIAMSON (United States), in a second right of reply, said facts were stubborn things.  If Cuba continued to tell lies, the United States would continue to tell the truth.  What was on display here was the way Cuba treated its own people.  On that island you were either with the regime or against it -- and hence harassed, detained, or in prison.  The United States would not be intimidated, and the Commission should not be.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a second right of reply, said apparently the United States Ambassador had become infected by the lies of his President and Secretary of State who had deceived the world regarding Iraq, had deceived the world while dropping bombs and murdering the Iraqi people.  The Cuban people had obtained their independence in the face of aggression by the United States.  Many Cubans had died in two centuries of struggle for independence, and Cubans would continue to carry on that struggle.  United States mercenaries were paid to kill Cubans and to invade that country, as in the Bay of Pigs incident.  These mercenaries, unfortunately born in Cuba, had sought to impose dominance on the country.  What they could not win through ideas they would not manage to win through lies, either, and the United States Ambassador should rethink the scenario being offered up by his President and by the Secretary of State. 

* *** *