Sixty-first General Assembly

Plenary

51^st Meeting (AM)

DELEGATES WORRY HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COULD SQUANDER CHANCE TO RESPOND TO ABUSES IT

WAS SET UP TO ADDRESS, AS GENERAL ASSEMBLY REVIEWS COUNCIL’S FIRST REPORT

Speakers Welcome Two Special Sessions on Middle East; Caution Council

Against Remaining Mute on Other Pressing Situations, Like War-Torn Darfur

Just seven months after the United Nations General Assembly created a Human Rights Council to replace the much criticized Commission on Human Rights, Assembly diplomats, today, appeared divided over the new body’s early direction:  some warned that it should not be turned into a board of “inquisition” against countries in the South, while others were disappointed that the Council might be squandering the opportunity to respond to the very abuses it had been set up to address.

During the Assembly’s review of the Human Rights Council’s first report, most speakers acknowledged that the new Council was still developing its own working methods and procedures for addressing specific countries’ human rights situations.  Many welcomed the Council’s two special sessions -- one on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the other on rights violations committed during Israel’s 33-day war with Hizbollah in Lebanon.  Others praised the Council’s recommendation that the Assembly adopt the international Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

But, even during the early transition phase, delegations were concerned that the Council -- created to provide a more effective and less politicized replacement for the discredited Human Rights Commission -- could become bogged down by the same politically motivated decision-making.  Warning the Council to steer clear of double standards and selective targeting of human rights situations in Southern countries, speakers from the developing world said that no country’s human rights record was above reproach.

At the same time, however, some speakers from developed countries said they had been discouraged by the early phase, since the much anticipated Council, which was supposed to make it more difficult for Governments to deny their obligations to protect and promote human rights, appeared to be serving only the interests of regional blocs.  By putting politics ahead of saving lives, the Council had, so far, remained mute on many pressing human rights issues, such as the situation in the Sudan’s war-torn Darfur region.

Cuba’s representative stressed that, above all, it needed to bring an end to political manipulations in the United Nations human rights machinery.  Towards that goal, the old Human Rights Commission had regularly adopted resolutions on the human rights situations in specific countries.  But, unfortunately, such texts questioned the constitutional order of certain countries and interfered with the right of self-determination of peoples.  Calling for equal treatment of human rights violations in all parts of the world, he warned that the Council should not be allowed to become a “new inquisition” against countries in the South.

Agreeing that it was critical that the new Council overcome any troubling impediments it might have inherited from the past, Egypt’s representative also called on the body to take a firm stand against country-specific resolutions and all texts not based on “objective and unequivocal evidence of systematic violations” truly requiring international attention.  Member States also needed to pave the way for a meaningful relationship between the Council and the Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural).  Indeed, that had been the fundamental reason behind removing the Council from the purview of the Economic and Social Council -– where the Commission on Human Rights rested -- and making it a subsidiary body of the General Assembly.

Lamenting the Council’s “discouraging” start, the United States’ representative said that, sadly, the new body, into which had been put so much hope and work, had been a disappointment.  Some States seemed to view the new Council as just another arena in which to play political games and not as a vehicle for advancing the cause of human rights or for giving redress to the victims of abuse.  The greatest disappointment had been its failure to pronounce itself equitably and forcefully on egregious violations of human rights in places such as the Sudan.  The Council had two sessions remaining in its first transitional and critical year.  If it was to meet the expectations and hopes of people worldwide, Member States must seize the opportunity to shape the Council and set it on the right path.

Liechtenstein’s representative also felt that the opportunity offered by the Council’s establishment had not been used to the fullest extent.  The spirit of dialogue, which had been the guiding principle in setting up the Council, had not been applied in practice, in a satisfactory manner.  That had been particularly damaging in connection with the second special session, where the body remained inactive for a considerable period of time, and then had rushed to adopt a resolution on which consultations had barely begun.  The resolution had been adopted, but by a strongly divided vote.  Where substantive action was needed, it must still be forthcoming; but, such results should be sought on the basis of consultations that went beyond regions and interest groups, and with the full involvement of States that were not Council members, he urged.

Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba of Mexico reviewed the Council’s work since its creation, and stressed that the entire international community had the challenge of helping the new body become the organ “responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals without any distinction”.  The Council had faced its new challenges by applying a great many of the effective practices of the Human Rights Commission, and had developed creative and innovative measures to help it design a new machinery to protect human rights.

Among those challenges was defining new ways to face situations where human rights were violated, including emergency and preventative situations, she said.  The mandate and nature of the Council’s work required that it be given the right tools and the necessary resources to help it consolidate and complete its functions.  He hoped to be able to build a new institution that met the high expectations bestowed on it by the United Nations.

In other business today, the Assembly approved the Sixth Committee’s (Legal) request to hold one extra meeting, to be held on 15 or 16 November, in order to complete its work for the current session.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), Guatemala, India, Mexico, Belarus, Panama, Canada, Switzerland, Ukraine, the Sudan and Senegal.

The Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 13 November, to consider several draft resolutions on cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations, and to begin its debate on strengthening the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations.

Background

The General Assembly met today to take up the first report of the new Human Rights Council.

The Assembly has before it the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/61/53) summarizing its work in Geneva during its first session (19-30 June) and two special sessions (5-6 July and 11 August).  At its first session, the Council adopted two instruments:  Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The texts of the instruments, in the form of draft resolutions, are recommended to the Assembly for adoption.

In addition, during its first session, the report recalls that the Council adopted a resolution to extend the mandate of the working group on an optional protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so as to prepare a first draft as a basis for further negotiations.  The Council also decided to renew the mandate of the Working Group on the Right to Development for one year and to pursue work in this area through the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, or its successor expert advice mechanism.

Further, the report states the Council adopted a resolution on the Intergovernmental Working Group on Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to select five experts to study gaps in existing international instruments to combat racism, xenophobia and related intolerance.  The resolution also requests the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to further study measures to strengthen implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The Council took a number of decisions related to its working methods, according to the report.  Among others, it decided to extend all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights; to establish an intersessional, open-ended, intergovernmental working group to develop the universal periodic review mechanism; and to establish a working group along the same lines to review, improve and rationalize the system of special procedures, expert advice and complaints procedures.

At its first special session, the report says the Council also adopted a resolution expressing grave concern at the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people caused by the Israeli occupation, and decided to dispatch an urgent fact-finding mission, headed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory.  The resolution urges Israel to immediately release arrested Palestinian ministers, members of the Palestinian Legislative Council and other officials, as well as other arrested Palestinian civilians.  The text further urges all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law and to refrain from violence against civilians.

At its second special session, the report states, the Council adopted a resolution strongly condemning the grave Israeli violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law in Lebanon.  Also, by the terms of the resolution, the Council decided to dispatch a high-level commission of inquiry, comprising experts on human rights and humanitarian law, to investigate the systematic targeting and killing of civilians by Israel in Lebanon.

Presentation of Human Rights Council Report

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA ( Mexico) reviewed the Council’s work since its creation and said the international community had the challenge of helping the Council become the organ “responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals without any distinction”.

During its first year, the Council held several regular and special sessions, he noted.  At its first session, the Council had been able to congregate a high-level participation, which had included representatives from national Governments and civil society.  The Council had also received a report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour.

He said that the Council had held several notable debates, including:  a review of the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; the peace accord in Darfur; attempts to improve the mechanisms to promote and protect human rights; preventative measures to stop incitement to hatred and violence; the human rights of migrants, within the context of the ongoing dialogue about international migration and development; and the role played by human rights defenders in the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Council had adopted resolutions on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and on the incitement to racial and religious hatred, and promotion of tolerance.

On specific decisions related to the Council’s work, he said it had approved and recommended the adoption by the Assembly, the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The Council had established three working groups:  the working group on an international pact on economic, social and cultural rights; the working group on the right to development; and the intergovernmental working group on the Durban Declaration and action programme.

To prevent a vacuum in the protection of human rights during the transition phase, the Council had extended, for one year, the mandates of all special procedures of the Human Rights Commission, including those of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the procedure established by resolution 1503 (2003) of the Economic and Social Council, he said.  As per that decision, the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights would present before the Council all reports they would have presented before the former Human Rights Commission.

He said the Council had established an intersessional working group to fulfil the requirement placed on the Council by the Assembly to carry out a periodic universal examination of how each State was fulfilling its human rights obligations.  To complete that requirement, the Council had asked for assistance from OHCHR.  The creation of this universal exam mechanism was one of the most difficult and pressing issues before the Council, he stated.

Continuing his summary, he said that the Council had faced its new challenges by retaking a great number of the effective practices of the Human Rights Commission, and had developed creative and innovative measures to help it design a new machinery to protect human rights.  Among those challenges was also defining new ways to face situations where human rights were violated, including in emergency situations and in prevention.

He said that the mandate and nature carried by the work carried of the Council required that it be given the right tools and the necessary resources to help it consolidate and complete its functions.  He hoped to be able to build a new institution that met the high expectations bestowed on to it by the United Nations.

KIRSTI LINTONEN ( Finland), on behalf of the European Union, said that the creation of the Human Rights Council had provided new opportunities to promote and protect human rights.  The Council continued the work started by the Commission on Human Rights, and, in addition to adopting various texts, had sent two recommendations to the General Assembly in the form of draft resolutions on the International Convention for the Protection all Persons from Enforced Disappearances and on the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The Union fully supported both texts.

She said that the Union also welcomed dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and reaffirmed its support for the work and independence of her Office.  It reiterated its commitment to open and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders and non-governmental organizations on various human rights questions, within the framework of the Council.  In addition to the extension of the mandate of the responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights to prevent a “protection gap” in the Council’s transitional year, the Union also favoured a strengthened review process.  Specifically, it favoured the establishment of a working group to develop the modalities of the “Universal Periodic Review”.  Hopefully, that review would become a meaningful mechanism, which complemented the Council’s work as it related to the country’s situation.

However, during consideration at the first session of the Human Rights Council of the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the situation in Darfur, following the signing of the Abuja Peace Agreement, the Union regretted that the Council had been unable to adopt any substantial pronouncements on those matters.  In the second special session, in the work of the escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and Israel, the Union had called for an immediate cessation of violence, followed by a sustainable ceasefire.  The Union would have preferred the Council to have adopted texts that addressed the situation in a more balanced manner, reflecting all the relevant aspects of the crisis, and it had regretted that no genuine discussions took place in that regard.

MARGARET HUGHES FERRARI (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), speaking on behalf the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), noted the progress that had been made during the Council’s first session, particularly the establishment of two working groups on “the universal periodic review” and “institution-building”.  The core of the new body’s work should be the establishment of a cooperative mechanism for the promotion of human rights.  The Council should also serve as a vehicle to promote genuine cooperation for capacity-building and mutual assistance.

She said that CARICOM endorsed the Secretary-General’s view that the Council’s work should amount to a “clean break” from the past, clearly apparent in the way that it would develop and apply the universal periodic review mechanism.  The Community believed that developing a universal periodic review mechanism that was impartial and applicable to all States would usher in a new era of international cooperation on human rights matters.  With that in mind, it was crucial for the working group tasked with developing the modalities and timelines for the review to be up and running as soon as possible.

Here, she noted the Council’s decision to hold informal consultations through an open-ended consultative process in order to compile proposals, and relevant information and experiences.  She also stressed that, as the Council’s work began in earnest, Member States must ensure that it did not cater to political agendas, but rather served humanity, particularly those whose rights had been denied.  If that perspective was maintained, the Council should be able to promote and protect the highest ideals and human rights standards.

JORGE SKINNER-KLÉE (Guatemala) supported the division of labour between the Plenary and the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this year -– as both were set to review the Council’s report -- on the understanding that that did not set a precedent in the way the report of the Council would be considered in the future.  Indeed, that consideration should not just be a symbolic act or annual ritual, but an exhaustive examination of that body’s work; it should give the Assembly the opportunity to help chart the way forward.

He said that, consideration of the report was the main link between the Assembly and the Council, so the Council’s report must be more than just an overview of a decision that had been taken; it must be a comprehensive examination of States’ efforts to promote and protect human rights, as well as present concrete and objective examinations of violations of such rights.  Guatemala believed that the way forward was through responsible, transparent and inclusive dialogue by Council members.

Guatemala agreed with the establishment of the open-ended intersessional working group to determine the methodologies of the universal review mechanism, which must be designed to make real dialogue possible and avoid selectivity and politicization, he said, real progress on the part of the Council would lead to a greater respect for human rights worldwide, as well as pave the way towards peace and security, in a fair and equitable manner.

MIRIAM HUGHES ( United States) said, in the spirit and fundamental belief in the pursuit of human rights, the United States had engaged in the negotiations to create a new and stronger Human Rights Council.  It had sought to set the highest standards for membership in the new body and to provide it with the tools it would need to make a real and significant difference in the promotion and protection of human rights.  While the results of the negotiations had fallen short of her country’s hopes, the United States, nevertheless, committed itself to work cooperatively with members of the Council and with other partners to help shape that new body into the mechanism that could meet the high expectations of countries, and most especially, those of victims of abuse.

She said that the Council had also gotten off to a slow and discouraging start.  Some said that had been due, in part, to the “growing pains” of a new institution.  That was not an excuse, not reason enough, to allow the Council to become sidetracked from its reason for being.  It was up to the members of the Human Rights Council to exercise the political will and determination, and have the intellectual honesty, to make the Council into the body it was supposed to be.  The first two regular sessions had haltingly begun the work of laying the foundations for the Council’s work, but much remained to be done.

The greatest disappointment of the Council, however, had lain in the Council’s failure to pronounce itself equitably and forcefully on serious human rights situations endangering persons in various regions of the world, she said.  The Council had failed to reach agreement to address egregious violations of human rights in places such as the Sudan.  In that time of tension among peoples of different faiths and cultures, the Council had also missed the opportunity to promote a dialogue to increase understanding and tolerance among religions and cultures.  The Council could and should have reaffirmed fundamental rights, such as freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of association.

She said that, as the Council approached its third regular session, there was another call for a special session on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  That would be the third such session in less than a year of the Council’s operation.  Some States seemed to view the Council as just another area in which to play political games –- and not as a vehicle for advancing the cause of human rights or for giving redress to the victims of abuse.

The Council had two sessions remaining in its first transitional and critical year, she noted.  If it was to meet the expectations and hopes of people all over the world, Member States must seize the opportunity presented to them to shape the Council and set it on the right path.  They had a responsibility to build a Council that could truly protect and promote human rights around the world.  Sadly, so far, the Human Rights Council, into which had been put so much hope and work, had been a disappointment.  “We can only hope and work to help ensure that it reverses course and fulfils the purpose for which it was created”, she concluded.

MAGED ABDELAZIZ ( Egypt) said that, when Member States had decided to replace the Commission on Human Rights with the Human Rights Council, the United Nations had taken an important step to eliminate the troubling ways the international community handled human rights issues up to that point, which had been characterized by politicization, double standards and selectivity.  Egypt and others had hoped that the move would help the international community overcome those obstacles, and, in that regard, all States needed to have a clear vision of the Council’s duties and obligations.

He said that Egypt believed that that should begin with revising the methods concerning country-specific resolutions:  there was a need to take a firm stand against all such texts that were not based on objective and unequivocal evidence of systematic violations truly requiring international attention.  Member States also needed to pave the way for a meaningful relationship between the Council and the Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural).  Indeed, that had been the fundamental reason behind removing the Council from the purview of the Economic and Social Council -– where the Commission on Human Rights rested -- and making it a subsidiary body of the Assembly.

Any attempts to replace the Third Committee’s role with that of the new Council would fail, he said, stressing that it was absolutely necessary for the Council to report to the Third Committee, as that body that was institutionally responsible for reviewing the Council’s recommendations and decisions.  Egypt was confident that the Council would overcome problems it might have inherited from the past.

There was also a need to provide the Council with the necessary financial, administrative and technical resources needed to perform its tasks, particularly to enable it to overcome the dire financial straits and technical disabilities it was now facing, he said.  Finally, during the transition from the old Commission to the new Council, it was necessary to update the mandates of the whole galaxy of relevant committees, commissions, working groups and institutions, so that the interests of all States were preserved.

SHATRUGHAN SINHA ( India) said it was right for the Council’s report to be channeled to the Assembly through the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), with the latter body’s expertise on human rights, but differences in schedules could create delays, if the Committee considered the report in its entirety.  Further, since the Council had just begun functioning in June, the approach should be flexible during the first year before formalizing the reporting arrangement.

He called for the Council to be guided by the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding, and to evolve with an even-handed approach in promoting and protecting all human rights and translating the right to development into a reality.  Further, the Council should promote human rights through genuine dialogue, capacity-building and mutual assistance so as to emerge as a forum for voluntary participation in the sharing of national experiences and best practices in promoting and protecting all rights and freedoms.

Expressing approval of the Council’s work to date, he said that it had demonstrated its ability to swiftly react to human rights emergencies, with the holding of its two special sessions.  There were enormous challenges ahead, as the Council defined and operationalized its architecture.  The informal meetings of the two working groups were a step in the right direction.  The rest of the year should be spent on institution-building since the Council’s success depended, to a large extent, on the outcome of those processes.

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER ( Liechtenstein) welcomed the Council’s report and reiterated that body’s establishment as having been among the crucial decisions in the follow-up to the World Summit of 2005.  The sometimes overwrought criticism of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, had created the need for putting the human rights discourse on a new basis.  The Council offered the opportunity everyone had sought to focus the United Nations’ work on the implementation of human rights standards for engaging in a genuine dialogue and for a better division of work between Geneva and New York.

He said that the Council had held only two sessions, and two special sessions and, thus, it had not gone through a full reporting cycle.  Thus, any pronouncement on the substance of its work must be preliminary.  However, the opportunity offered by the Council’s establishment had not been used to the fullest extent.  The spirit of dialogue, which had been the guiding principle in setting up the Council, had not been applied, in practice, in a satisfactory manner.  That had been particularly damaging in connection with the second special session, where the Council had remained inactive for a considerable period of time, and then, had been rushed to the adoption of a resolution that was barely consulted on; it had been adopted, therefore, by a strongly divided vote.

In general terms, it was fair to say that the Council had “not been off to an easy start”, he said.  It was understood that, the first year should focus on institution-building and that the transition would necessary yield somewhat limited results on issues of substance.  However, where substantive action was needed, it must still be forthcoming.  Such results should be sought on the basis of consultations that went beyond regions and interest groups and with the full involvement of States that were not Council members.

He said that, while there was much enthusiasm about the fresh start for the human rights work of the United Nations, there were not enough concrete ideas about how to shape that fresh start.  States must come forward themselves with innovative approaches.  On several occasions, the temptation to slip back into the well-known patterns of the Commission –- and sometimes worse -- was too strong to resist for many.  That trend must be reversed and it must be reversed soon.  Like any new body, the Council must be given a grace period and have the opportunity to organize its work and proceedings in a circumspect and undisturbed manner.

That grace period was quickly coming to an end, and “the efforts to put the Council on a solid foundation were nowhere near conclusion”, he said.  Thus, it was crucial that the conclusion of the second session was carefully prepared in a manner that led to the adoption of a limited number of decisions dealing with matters of substance and urgency.  The third session could also make a number of substantive decisions on the basis of thorough preparation and wide consultations.  That would enable the Council to become more fully operational and functional.

ENRIQUE BERRUGA ( Mexico) said the establishment of the Council of Human Rights constituted the most transcendental advancement in the creation of a multilateral, institutional framework for human rights in decades.  With the Council, the Assembly had made human rights one of the three great pillars of collective action within the international community.

He said that the Council’s two special sessions in its first months had already showed a marked difference between it and its predecessor, and its spirit of renewal had been commendable.  He welcomed the adoption of the Council’s two new instruments, one on enforced disappearances, and the other on indigenous peoples.  Both were evidence of the improvements made by the new Council.

Urging the Assembly to provide the Council with better tools, he said Mexico would continue to work constructively in the working group charged with the establishment of mechanisms aimed at determining the universal periodic examination of the world’s human rights systems.  The ongoing review of the mandates of special procedures also needed to become visible on the ground, in order to demonstrate that the actions adopted by the Council were implemented.

It was imperative to design a better working relationship between the Third Committee and the Council, he stressed.  To do so would ensure that the considerable progress made by both entities was not put at risk. Their work was complementary, and it was important to define a division of labour that would strengthen them and integrate them smoothly into their operations.

SERGEI A. RACHKOV ( Belarus) expressed his gratitude to the President of the Human Rights Council, especially for the decisions taken in the first few months as the Council prepared to become the fundamental human rights organ of the United Nations.  He said it was laudable that the Council had had the determination of assuming the effective working methods of the Human Rights Commission and discarding the mechanisms that did not work.

He welcomed the Council’s determination not to make human rights decisions driven by political motives, and said his Government was pleased with the proposal to establish a human rights review methodology that would evaluate the human rights systems in all countries.  Such a review must be careful not to become politicized, he warned.  With that in mind, it would help if the Council did not use previous procedures that were created in the Human Rights Commission for political reasons.  It was that practice that had eroded the Commission’s credibility.

Today, there was no country that was above some criticism on its human rights record, he stated.  This led many countries to use international organizations to pursue their own goals, as was occurring in the Third Committee.  He, thus, asked States for a moratorium on all country specific resolutions, which were politically motivated.

GIANCARLO SOLER TORRIJOS (Panama) said that, like other delegations, Panama would have wished for the Council’s work to move forward a little more quickly, but it was aware, nevertheless, that the new body had a substantial workload, including taking important decisions on a number of technical and internal matters, which would allow it to work more efficiently and effectively.  What was at stake was the very ability of the United Nations to implement the tenets of the Vienna Declaration and to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights throughout the world.  The Council should also strive to work effectively with the Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural).  Meanwhile, Panama was following the Council’s process of consolidating the various bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations human rights machinery.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ ( Cuba) said the current debate should not have taken place before the Third Committee had had an opportunity to consider the report.  He disagreed with speakers who had expressed grave concern over what had occurred in Geneva.  It was a complex process, and moving forward too rapidly might lead to the same dangers that had caused the failure of the Human Rights Commission.  There was a need to put an end to the political manipulations in the United Nations human rights machinery.  He supported Egypt’s idea of giving priority to the treatment of violations of human rights in any part of the world.

He said one of the first issues to be defined was to determine clearly the patterns of issuing resolutions referring to individual countries.  The Human Rights Commission had adopted individual country-specific resolutions in cases of grave human rights violations.  But, in the current year, those resolutions questioned the constitutional orders of certain countries, hence was questioning the right of self determination of peoples.  Also fundamental was the need to clearly define the subordination of the Council to the various bodies of the United Nations.  The Third Committee should consider the Council’s report before the Plenary.

Among other concerns his delegation had was the need for the Council to clearly define its working methods and procedures.  The work being done could not be successful, if the Office of the High Commissioner was not staffed according to an equitable geographical distribution.  As that staff prepared the report, it should reflect and represent all geographical areas and cultures of the world.  In particular, the Council should not be allowed to become a “new inquisition” against countries in the South.

HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN ( Canada) said his country was proud to have been elected to the Human Rights Council, which had made significant achievements at its first and second special sessions.  It was essential, however, that the Council focus on building strong institutions, while fulfilling its mandate to promote respect for human rights.  In that light, it was disappointing that, in the early sessions, some States had chosen to pursue a path of divisiveness, rather than constructive dialogue and cooperation.

The Council, he said, was not an end in itself, but a means to an end of producing measurable improvements in the respect for human rights on the ground.  Canada had always been a proponent of multilateralism of the kind that favoured concrete results over processes, and would work to ensure that the Council was able to respond to urgent human rights situations and that it maintained a focus on the implementation of the rights that belonged to everyone.

PETER MAURER ( Switzerland) said the Human Rights Council, hosted by his country, was one of the major reforms of the United Nations and a decisive step towards the promotion and protection of human rights.  Establishment of the Council gave hope that victims of human rights violations would be able to benefit from increased protections and that the more ambitious goal of preventing such violations could be achieved.  The holding of the two extraordinary sessions on the situation in the Gaza Strip and in Lebanon had demonstrated that the Council could intervene promptly in the event of a human rights emergency.

He said the Council was still an instrument, the use of which was delicate.  It had the potential to strengthen and to improve the United Nations human rights system, if resolution 60/251 was fully implemented.  The remaining months, until June 2007, should enable the Council to put in place a universal periodic review mechanism to revise and adapt the mandates transferred from the Commission on Human Rights.  It was also crucial to demonstrate that the Council responded appropriately and effectively to situations in which human rights were violated.  It would also be important to determine the relationship and the distribution of tasks between the Third Committee and the Human Rights Council.

DINA MARTINA ( Ukraine) said that the establishment of the Human Rights Council marked a new era in the United Nations’ efforts to achieve the universal promotion and protection of human rights.  It also represented a significant step in implementing commitments made at the 2005 World Summit.  Welcoming the Council’s decision to extend all Commission mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities, she underscored the need to fully employ the potential of the Commission’s assets, instead of allowing them to be lost in the transition process.

In addition, she said that Ukraine supported an international instrument for the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous people, although the related draft resolution had not enjoyed consensus in the Council, owing to some fundamental flaws.  There was still a huge amount of work ahead for the Council to work without confrontation, selectivity, politicization and double standards.  It was essential, therefore, to establish a productive, universal, periodic review mechanism, applicable to all countries, while paying special attention to the elaboration of human rights violations’ preventative mechanisms.  It was also important to develop mechanisms to ensure interaction and cooperation with regional and subregional organizations.

IDREES MOHAMED SAEED ( Sudan) said he would address the Council’s report, in detail, during the Third Committee’s consideration of it.  His country had actively and constructively participated in the consultations leading to the establishment of the Council.  The arguments of the United States during the consultations had been an extension of its unilateral attitude and its claim that it was the only judge and jury in the field of human rights.  That attitude was an expression of selectivity and double standards, and had been rejected by Member States.

He said his country would have been willing to discuss certain criticisms, if they had been given by a country with a reasonably clear human rights record.  But, to be criticized by the United States, the greatest human rights violator in the world, was ridiculous.  Everyone knew about Guantanamo, clandestine prisons, laws on surveillance of United States citizens and the country’s shameful support of the apartheid regime.  He called upon the United States to address the human rights situation at home, first, and not to abuse the forums of human rights to settle scores.  He hoped the Council would be characterized by dialogue and objectivity, and not by confrontation and selectivity.

PAUL BADJI ( Senegal) paid tribute to the significant work made, in a short time, by the Human Rights Council.  It would be premature to make an exhaustive assessment of the Council, but, his country welcomed the climate under which the first sessions had been conducted.

He said that given the problems the Human Rights Commission had had fulfilling its role, particular attention should be given to ensure that the Council worked with justice and the full participation by all actors.

His country welcomed some of the resolutions introduced in the Council, including the one relating to the Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances, and he invited the Assembly to adopt it.  His country, however, was not satisfied with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, while it was important, it needed to be expanded.  He called on further consultations to fill in gaps and achieve consensus.

He welcomed the convening, by the Council, of the sessions on the urgent humanitarian situation in Palestine and Lebanon, which were still at the forefront of the Assembly’s agenda.  It was important for the Assembly to expand respect for all human rights, including the right to development, and urged the Organization to denounce all forms of human rights violations and take appropriate measures with objectivity and non-selectivity to prevent those violations.  He urged the Assembly to spare no effort to help the Council carry out its work.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record