Sixty-first General Assembly

Third Committee

32^nd & 33^rd Meetings (AM & PM)

Launch of Human rights council represents historic opportunity to promote,

 

protect fundamental freedoms, third committee told

 

Delegates Warn against Exploitation of Human Rights Principles for Political Ends

This year’s launch of the Human Rights Council had represented a historic opportunity that could not be missed, to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights around the world, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard, today, as it continued its general discussion on human rights questions.

Several representatives, however, took issue with statements made by Special Rapporteurs, during recent presentations to the Committee, and some warned against the exploitation of the principles of human rights for political ends.

“Our work on human rights has been criticized, and rightly so, for being politicized, selective and ineffective,” said the representative of Norway.  “This time we have the opportunity to create a strong and effective human rights body.”

The representative of Thailand said that an “effective and credible” United Nations was needed to sustain an enabling international environment for the cultivation of a human rights culture.  Thailand had particularly high expectations for the Human Rights Council and the Universal Periodic Review, she said, adding:  “We look forward to a Human Rights Council that talks less, listens more and acts more promptly, to prevent and address gross and serious human rights violations.”

Peru’s representative said the priority given to human rights at the international level, had reached an unprecedented level, with the capacity of the United Nations to monitor and promote human rights also increasing.  It was in that context that the Human Rights Council would ensure respect for, and the protection of, human rights in the broadest sense.

Australia’s representative said his country welcomed the Council’s establishment, earlier in the year, and it offered a fresh start.  However, its performance had been mixed, and it had given unbalanced attention to Middle East issues.

The representative of Syria said human rights were nothing new, and that most ancient civilizations had dealt with the issue, in one way or another.  It was wrong, he said, to argue that certain patterns of human rights could be imposed on people, without regard to their culture or history.  The Human Rights Council should undertake its work in an honest and transparent manner, away from politicization, he added.

The United States representative said it had been a difficult year for human rights defenders.  What they needed, he said, was not excuses or sympathy, but action.  He added that people should not have to choose between development and democracy -- it was only when citizens were free to engage fully in civic life, that they could contribute greatly to their nation’s development.

Exercising the right of reply, several representatives objected to remarks directed specifically at their countries.  Some addressed the United States and Australia directly, with China saying the United States risked international condemnation, if it persisted in accusing other States of human rights violations, without acknowledging its own problems at home.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Uzbekistan, the Russian Federation, Viet Nam, Algeria, Nepal, Uganda, Ukraine, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, Jordan, Kuwait, Congo, Serbia, Syria, Benin, Cuba, Cyprus, Greece and Sri Lanka.

The Permanent Observer of the Holy See also spoke, as did the Permanent Observer from the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

The right of reply was exercised by the representatives of Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Russian Federation, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, China, Turkey and Cyprus.

The Committee is expected to reconvene on Monday, 30 October at 10 a.m. to conclude its discussion on human rights issues and to hear the introduction of a draft resolution on the rights of the child.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to continue its general discussion of human rights questions.

For additional background, please see Press Releases GA/SHC/3856, GA/SHC/3857, GA/SHC/3858, GA/SHC/3860, GA/SHC/3861 and GA/SHC/3862 of 17, 18, 19, 23, 25 and 26 October, respectively.

Statements

ROMY TINCOPA ( Peru) said the priority that had been given to human rights at the international level had reached an unprecedented level in recent decades, with the capacity of the United Nations to monitor and promote human rights having been increased.  Respect and protection of human rights in the broadest sense had been ensured by the creation in March of the Human Rights Council.  Peru had extended an open invitation to Special Rapporteur's to visit and to make constructive recommendations, which had been received by the Government with great interest.

Peru had three principal concerns, she said.  Extreme poverty was an age-old problem that had afflicted Peru for a long time; it would be submitting a draft resolution calling upon the international community to take urgent measures to eradicate extreme poverty, which was a violation of human rights.  Peru would also submit a draft resolution on the rights of indigenous peoples.  The third concern was the rights of people with disabilities, and here Peru supported the prompt adoption by the General Assembly of the draft convention for the protection and promotion of their rights.

AKMAL SAIDOV ( Uzbekistan) said it was regrettable to witness the continued politicization of human rights issues and selective targeting of developing countries despite reform of the United Nations human rights machinery.  The second session of the Human Rights Council had shown the attempt by certain countries to continue the discredited practice of double standards and selectivity. 

His delegation also continued to be bewildered by the ungrounded assertions about the Andijan events.  It seemed that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) was either pretending it did not have any information or intentionally ignoring the proven facts with the aim of exerting political pressure on the country, he said.  Uzbekistan had regularly informed the United Nations on all stages of subsequent investigations and court hearings, including through an aide-memoire addressed to the Secretary-General. 

He noted that the High Commissioner’s report on the Andijan events had been prepared in defiance of her mandate.  His delegation was bewildered by the ungrounded calls of the OHCHR for an international investigation of the events of May 2005, and noted that Uzbekistan’s proposal for constructive cooperation on monitoring the investigation had been rejected.  He also expressed concern about the work of the OHCHR in different regions, particularly in Central Asia.  He cited the failure to implement the second phase of a regional project and the appointment of a regional representative whose candidacy was opposed by Central Asian countries. 

He asked whether it was not illegitimate to table in the Third Committee country-specific resolutions without considering them first in the Human Rights Council.  He also questioned whether there was any limit on the increasing number of Special Rapporteur’s and independent experts.  The process of reforming the human rights architecture of the United Nations should find legitimate and practical solutions to those issues, he said.

BORIS V. CHERNENKO ( Russian Federation) noted that too often the international community had used the stick more than the carrot in efforts to promote and protect human rights.  That approach had been discredited, as selective, one-sided measures did more harm than good.  The reform of the United Nations human rights machinery was an opportunity to carry out global reforms.  The establishment of the Human Rights Council was a step in the right direction, but it had not succeeded and probably would not succeed in ridding itself of the politicization of its work.  However, he said, the universal periodic review should improve matters.  His delegation was concerned that the Council still had no rules of procedure, clear working methods, or established agenda. 

His country’s support for the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was evident in its $2 million voluntary contribution to her Office.  His delegation was concerned about the geographic tilt in her Office towards one regional group and looked forward to practical steps to address that situation. 

The Russian Federation condemned actions by terrorist groups that violated human rights, in particular the right to life.  There could be no justification for the acts of terrorists.  He also drew attention to a draft resolution on the taking of hostages, which would be introduced by his delegation. 

NGUYEN TAT THANH ( Viet Nam) said it now was up to everyone to determine whether the Human Rights Council would succeed, and whether persons with disabilities would effectively enjoy all their human rights.  The devil now lay not in the details of negotiated texts, but in the ways and means adopted to implement them.  For the Council to live up to its raison d’être, it should be free from bias, selectivity and double standards, and to be truly ruled by objectivity and the spirit of dialogue, especially when reviewing the mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the ex-Commission and when devising and conducting the periodic universal review.

At the local level, people would not see the Council or treaties having an influence on their lives so long as they lived in extreme poverty, he said.  A person living in extreme poverty could not care less about his or her right to vote, when he or she was unsure of his or her family’s next meal.  Shame would be on all if the very basic right to existence could not be guaranteed.  At the national level, with its limited resources, Viet Nam had been doing its best to ensure a better material and spiritual life for its people.  It continued to take steps to ensure food security and socio-economic development; on the spiritual side, freedom of religions and beliefs had been reinforced in recent years.

MOURAD BENMEHIDI ( Algeria) said that the mandate review, for which two working groups had been set up by the Human Rights Council, was a unique opportunity for a fresh start in human rights.  Algeria had undergone a situation specifically tied to terrorism which it had had to face alone due to a lack of understanding among some and suspicion among others.  Voices had been raised to condemn the security measures and the policy of clemency that the country had adopted, but it was due to that approach that the terrorist threat had receded, and that a crisis which had threatened the stability of the State and the unity of the people had been overcome.  In the face of terrorism, the country had assured the functioning of the economy and essential social services, and it had never renounced the building of the rule of law.

Today, Algeria was resolutely determined to pursue its efforts for sustainable peace and development, he said.  The charter of peace and national reconciliation, massively approved by the Algerian people in a free and transparent referendum in September 2005, had given legitimacy to that goal.  Algeria had made judicial reform a priority, and legislation dealing with penal procedure, the family, nationality, judicial assistance and penitentiary reform had been reviewed in order to integrate the progress made by Algerian society and to interpret the commitments undertaken by the country in a sovereign manner.

MADHU RAMAN ACHARYA ( Nepal) noted that the overall human rights situation in the country had significantly improved since the restoration of multi-party democracy and the cessation of conflict.  His Government was fully committed to resolving the decade-old conflict through dialogue and peaceful negotiations, which would pave the way for better protection and promotion of human rights in the country.  He thanked the OHCHR for its work in Nepal.  He noted that the Office’s report on Nepal contained much information on his country’s efforts to protect human rights, but also contained some facts which needed to be verified and corrected to reflect the actual situation on the ground.

His Government was committed to ending impunity by bringing to justice all those, including security personnel, involved in the violation of human rights.  He noted a recent amendment to the Military Act, which provided for the trial of security personnel for certain human rights violations in civilian courts and through special courts.  The Government also had established a high-level Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights violations during the People’s Movement.  The Government maintained a strict policy and procedure of not allowing security personnel who had been charged or found guilty of human rights abuses, to be selected for United Nations peacekeeping missions.  Nepal was fully committed to eliminating discrimination based on race, caste, religion and sex and had taken various reform measures to address those problems.  He urged the OHCHR to provide technical and financial assistance to the National Human Rights Commission, which played an important watchdog role. 

FRANCIS K. BUTAGIRA ( Uganda) said that, sometimes, people talked of human rights as if they had not been living on this Earth; the emphasis on individual rights had been, at times, at the expense of the well-being of society or in disregard of the human rights of others.  Society had to be protected from dangerous criminals.  Some countries, including Uganda, had conferred jurisdiction on military tribunals or courts martial to try civilians in well-defined circumstances.  That practice had been condemned by the Special Rapporteur, who called for it to stop.  What was important, however, was whether such trials had been conducted in accordance with due process compatible with the rule of law.  In Uganda, the Constitution set out the right to a fair hearing, and provided that an order of habeas corpus was inviolable.  Moreover, court martial decisions could be challenged in the regular court of appeal and on to the Supreme Court.  Thus, the human rights of civilians accused before a military tribunal had been safeguarded, and society protected.

Uganda urged the speedy adoption of a convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, he said.  Under the dictatorial and murderous regime of Idi Amin in the 1970s, Uganda had experienced a spate of disappearances.  Many people had been whisked away by State agents, never to be heard from again; such people had been presumed dead.  Adoption of the convention would address that terrible phenomenon.

VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO ( Ukraine) said it was an honour to serve as a member in the new Human Rights Council, and his delegation was committed to make it a more efficient body.  Ukraine stood ready to do its utmost to overcome the negative past practice of selective, politicized and double-standard approaches in addressing human rights situations in various countries.  He noted his country’s concerns about poverty and discrimination as among the most serious obstacles to advancing human rights.  He noted that Ukraine had recently become a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which was the clearest repudiation of attempts to erode the absolute ban on the practice.  Ukraine was also committed to accede to the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at abolition of the death penalty.  His country warmly welcomed the recent adoption by the Human Rights Council of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and looked forward to its adoption by the General Assembly. 

In conclusion, he noted that next year Ukraine would mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Great Famine of the early 1930s, organized by the totalitarian Kremlin regime to exterminate the vital core of the nation.  The Great Famine, known as Holodomor, had led to the death of 7 to 10 million innocent men, women, and children, up to a quarter of Ukraine’s population.  Ukraine appealed to all States to condemn Holodomor and promote its international recognition, particularly by the United Nations, as genocide against the Ukrainian nation.

U WIN MRA ( Myanmar) said the protection and promotion of human rights had to be addressed in a global context, through a constructive, dialogue-based and non-confrontational approach.  In many developing countries, the right to development was indeed more pressing than any other rights.  Myanmar had long been a victim of a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign launched by anti-government elements, generously funded by some Western quarters.  Through the Internet, they had been exploiting every sensitive issue under the sun –- children, women or religion –- to smear the image of the Government in pursuit of their own political agenda.  Groundless allegations emanating from anti-government elements had gradually found their way into the Special Rapporteur’s reports and eventually into United Nations documents.

Myanmar had recently been unjustifiably labelled as a threat to international peace and security by a powerful country, in its unwarranted move to bring the issue to the Security Council in pursuit of its own political agenda, he said.  Myanmar was obviously not a threat to its neighbours, let alone to regional or international peace or security.  Placing the issue on the Security Council agenda would be a violation of article 24 of the United Nations Charter and a clear case of the Security Council encroaching on the functions and powers of the General Assembly.  Issues related to human rights, illicit narcotic drugs and HIV/AIDS should be left to the General Assembly.

BARRY F. LOWENKRON ( United States) said the past year had seen disturbing attempts to intimidate human rights defenders and civil society organizations to restrict or shut down their human rights and democracy efforts.  Unjust laws had been wielded as political weapons against those with independent views.  Member States must work to ensure that the words of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, endorsed eight years ago after long deliberations, were transformed into deeds.  Human rights defenders and non-governmental organizations were essential to the success of free nations, he said, adding that constricting the space for their work only limited a country’s political and economic growth.

From Cuba to North Korea, Burma to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, those who sought to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly faced unrelenting reprisals, he said.  He also cited specific examples of attacks on and threats to the work of human rights defenders in Iran, Belarus, Zimbabwe, the Sudan, China and Venezuela.  He urged Member States to stand together in their call for respect for human rights and stand together in solidarity with the courageous men and women who lived in fear yet dreamed of freedom.

The representative of Myanmar asked the Chair to remind delegations to refer to his country by its official name.

MOUSSA NEBIE ( Burkina Faso) said his country had well taken note of the recommendations made by the former Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Gabriella Rodriguez Pizzaro (document E/CN.4/2006/73/Add.2).  It would spare no effort to put them into effect in order to better manage the migration issue.  Proposals dealing with co-development as a durable solution to migration had been particularly interesting for Burkina Faso, which was a true crossroads of migration in sub-Saharan Africa, whose people had a legendary reputation for hospitality despite unfavourable climatic and economic conditions.  It had been a land of tolerance, solidarity and generosity towards its guests, who cohabitated peacefully with the country’s 60-odd ethnic groups.

Regarding the socio-economic difficulties faced by nationals of Burkina Faso who had been repatriated from Côte d’Ivoire, he said their plight had been linked to the poverty and economic hardship that had resulted from the closing of the border with Côte d’Ivoire following the crisis that erupted in 2002.  With technical and financial support from its partners, the Government had initiated a programme for their socio-economic integration, and it was counting on the support of all in order for the programme to be fully implemented.

SAMAR AL-ZIBDEH (Jordan) delivered a preliminary response to the findings of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, who had visited the country in June 2006.  Jordan would suspend further comment until his recommendations were presented in his final report to the March 2007 session of the Human Rights Council.  Her country had ratified the Convention against Torture and believed that torture was a most serious human rights violation, which should be confronted intensively in all countries.  She noted some disagreement’s with the Special Rapporteur’s initial conclusions, but looked forward to more productive and effective dialogue in the future.  The isolated cases identified by the Special Rapporteur were the cause of great concern and would be investigated most seriously, she said.

Her delegation called for the establishment of independent and effective country visiting mechanisms, which would ensure objective and credible assessments taking into account the views of the Government as well as of non-governmental organizations.

Mr. ALSAIF ( Kuwait) said that it had been wrong for some Governments or organizations to associate a religion with acts of terrorism carried out by persons who adhered to that religion.  Such a link, which had been underlined by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, was unacceptable.  Kuwait agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s hope that States would not shoot at the wrong target, but rather focus their efforts on resolving the deep-lying causes of terrorism.

Regarding the death penalty in Kuwait, he said that that was within the scope of the judicial authorities, who were independent.  Such judgements were automatically referred to the court of appeal within a month.  Those who had been convicted of collaboration during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait had been imprisoned, which had not been the case in other countries under occupation.  Regarding the right to food, the fact that a child died of starvation every five seconds was an affront to mankind.  Though Kuwait did not have such a problem, it did all in its power to help in the event of natural disasters elsewhere, through United Nations agencies, thus honouring its international commitments.

PASCAL GAYAMA ( Congo) appreciated the work of the OHCHR around the world, including its role in inquiries into human rights violations in Timor-Leste and Lebanon.  His country had established a national commission for human rights and hoped to benefit from a partnership with the High Commissioner’s office.  He welcomed the action plan to deploy staff to the regions, which would permit the High Commissioner to strengthen the field presence of her Office. 

Poverty was the greatest challenge to achieving human rights, he said.  His delegation awaited with interest the issuance of a publication providing human rights-based strategies to combat poverty.  That publication would be a useful tool to help all development partners translate human rights principles into practical measures to help the poor.  His delegation supported the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities and hoped it would be adopted by the General Assembly.  Congo also was encouraged by the decision of the new Human Rights Council to adopt the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.  While the Council was making progress, his delegation awaited proposals regarding the mechanism for the universal periodic reviews, which hopefully would avoid selectivity and politicization of human rights issues. 

ARCHBISHOP CELESTINO MIGLIORE, Permanent Observer of the Holy See, expressed serious concern that in many parts of the world, freedom of religion or belief did not exist, especially among religious minorities.  A high level of religious intolerance in some counties, leading to polarization and discrimination, was also a cause for concern.  Religious tolerance had sometimes been characterized as accepting or permitting religious beliefs and practices which disagreed with one’s own, but the time had come to apply the principles of authentic religious freedom, including the right to change one’s religion.  Religious tolerance was simply a starting point; it could not fully exist without an effective recognition of religious freedom.

The Holy See remained concerned by situations in which legislative and administrative measures had placed limits on the practice, observance or propagation of religion, he said.  There appeared to be recurring cases of intolerance in which group interests or power struggles had sought to prevent religious communities from enlightening consciences.  It would be intolerant to denigrate religious communities and to exclude them from public debate just because they did not agree with options or conform to practices contrary to human dignity.  No one should be forced to act in a manner contrary to his or her beliefs, in private or public, alone or in association or others.

BRETT MASON ( Australia) said his country was committed to helping the United Nations human rights system function better.  Australia welcomed the establishment of the Human Rights Council earlier this year, but noted that its performance so far had been mixed.  On the positive side, Australia valued the Council’s interactive dialogue between States, human rights mandate holders and other key stakeholders.  His country was also pleased by the Council’s engagement with civil society and national human rights institutions.  However, Australia was disappointed by the unbalanced attention the Council had given to Middle East issues, while failing to produce substantial outcomes on the full range of pressing human rights situations.  Australia urged Council members not to focus disproportionately on one country or one region while ignoring injustices elsewhere.

He recognized that there had been genuine progress in human rights observance over the past year, including the abolition of the death penalty in a number of countries, including the Philippines.  He encouraged other Member States to work towards abolition of the death penalty and join Australia as a State party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  There remained too many countries in which serious human rights violations persistently occurred, he said, citing specific situations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, the Sudan, Burma and Iraq. 

The representative of Myanmar asked the Chair to remind delegations to refer to his country by its official name.

JOHAN L. LØVALD ( Norway) recalled that the modalities of the Human Rights Council had to be agreed by June 2007.  Such a time frame represented an opportunity to create a strong and effective human rights body.  A key task for the Council during its first year would be institution building.  If Special Procedures were to fulfil their mandates, they had to remain independent, impartial and autonomous.  Member States had to cooperate fully with them, and they had to be given the necessary resources to carry out their tasks.

Those who fought for the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, often at the risk of their own lives, deserved the greatest possible respect and support from the international community, he said.  It had to be underlined that restrictions on the right to freedom of expression had far-reaching consequences, going beyond the serious affair of infringing upon a fundamental human right.  How could freedom of expression be exercised while respecting the diversity of a multicultural world?  What would be the long-term consequences of being insensitive to the culture, faith and emotions of others?  The answers could only be found through an ongoing dialogue, aimed at finding a way to manage fundamental differences.

SLAVKO KRULJEVIC ( Serbia) said his country had in the past few years invested enormous efforts in improving the situation of human rights, including minority rights.  However, human rights were still not respected in one part of the country, which was the United Nations-administered Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija.  One of the most acute problems there was the absence of security for the non-Albanian population, which since June 1999 had been subjected to attacks, intimidation and threats.  His delegation was greatly concerned about the continuing impunity enjoyed by some perpetrators of obviously ethnically motivated crimes and was particularly concerned that the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) did not provide data concerning the number of people arrested, charged or convicted for such crimes.  The culture of impunity and lack of security had restricted the freedom of movement of Serbs and other non-Albanians, affecting access to essential services such as health care and education. 

The distressing human rights situation in Kosovo and Metohija had recently been confirmed in the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee following consideration of the UNMIK report in July.  Among the concerns highlighted by the Committee were impunity for perpetrators of ethnically motivated crimes, the very low number of minority returns and the inability of displaced persons to recover their property, and the very low priority given by UNMIK to investigations of disappearances and abductions.  He said that in the seven years since the international deployment in the province, human rights had not been ensured to all inhabitants in the province despite all means at its disposal.  Meanwhile, throughout the ongoing negotiations on the future status of the province, human rights had become a bargaining chip, which was totally unacceptable and politically dangerous.

WARIF HALABI ( Syria) said human rights had been an issue eternally tied to the existence of mankind and the constant struggle for a better life, and that most ancient civilizations had dealt with the issue in one way or another.  Some had argued that certain patterns of human rights could be imposed on people without regard to culture or history, but that was incorrect, and the only way to improve the situation was through free dialogue and interaction.  Human rights were universal and inter-related, with no place for double standards.  The Human Rights Council should undertake its work in an honest and transparent manner, away from politicization.

The most dangerous threat to human rights in today’s world was the use of human rights by some States in a selective manner, she said.  Serious efforts had to be made to place the principles of human rights above narrower interests.  States had to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other States and priority had to be given to the most serious violations, such as the crimes of foreign occupation and aggression.  The Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had exposed the policies of settlement and occupation; his courage was appreciated.  The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had showed that measures adopted by some States in combating terrorism had led to terrorism being linked to Islam, serving as a cover for a clash of civilizations.  Syria had abided by the international declaration of human rights and had ratified more than 17 human rights instruments and its citizens practiced their rights within the framework of a pluralistic democracy.

KHUNYING LAXANACHANTHORN LAOHAPHAN ( Thailand) said her country’s commitment to human rights and democracy had been and would always remain strong.  Following recent political change, a civilian Government had been installed.  The Government was committed to the full restoration of a parliamentary democracy within the shortest possible time frame.  Thailand also would continue striving to fulfil all its international obligations.  The country was party to five of the seven core human rights instruments and earlier this year had become party to the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Thailand also had consistently rendered support to the work of the Special Procedures and had invited three special rapporteurs to visit the country over the course of the next year -- the Special Rapporteur on the right to the right to health; the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons; and the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

An effective and credible United Nations was needed to sustain an enabling international environment for the cultivation of a human rights culture, she said.  Thailand had particularly high expectations for the Human Rights Council and the universal periodic review.  Her delegation looked forward to a Human Rights Council that talked less, listened more and acted more promptly to prevent and address gross and serious human rights violations.  Yet the Council should not be the only mechanism.  The totality of the United Nations system needed to be mobilized for the promotion and protection of human rights.  In that regard, Thailand welcomed more country engagement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which would contribute to better monitoring, reporting and provision of technical assistance.  Thailand hoped that by working closely with the United Nations country team, the Office could focus more on preventing the disease rather than addressing its symptoms.

AL-SHEHAB ( Kuwait) thanked the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 for his report, which clearly reaffirmed that the continuing Israeli occupation was the main cause of suffering of the Palestinian people.  The arbitrary and unfair actions by the occupying Power, the constant use of military force, the creation of settlements and the use of psychological terrorism and threats had prevented the Palestinian people from achieving the most basic right to a free and dignified life.  Such practices ran counter to international law, including the Geneva Conventions. 

He noted the continued existence of the separation barrier, through which Israel had tried to annex close to 10 per cent of Palestinian territory.  Recalling the General Assembly resolution that Israel must comply with the International Court of Justice ruling that the barrier was illegal and that construction must stop immediately, the wall was still there.  That was one more example of Israel’s defiance, not only of the Palestinian people but of the international community, he said.  The Special Rapporteur had noted that there was nothing comforting in his report, which described in detail the inhuman treatment of the Palestinian people.  Kuwait joined the Special Rapporteur in making an urgent appeal to the international community to make every effort to put an end to such practices and called on Israel to abide by all international resolutions in that regard.

BERTIN BABADOUDOU ( Benin) said that the advent of democratic regimes in many African countries as a result of multiparty elections had been favourable for the improvement of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the continent.  Benin had been a fine example; the Constitution of 1990 had been one of the first in Africa to usher in a new era of democracy.  The fourth presidential elections in March had, once again, seen change in the State leadership.  Efforts had also been made concerning education in human rights, an essential part of the process.

However, such a process was fragile and it needed to be accompanied by economic progress, he said.  Economic, social and cultural rights needed greater attention.  International cooperation was needed to strive towards the universal realization of all human rights.  To be effective, such cooperation had to be established through genuine cooperation not policing.  It was time to bring an end to the use of pressure concerning human rights.

RODRIGO MALMIERCA DÍAZ ( Cuba) said that, despite hopes that the creation of the Human Rights Council would open a new era of cooperation in human rights matters, developed countries had again turned aside from the promotion of dialogue and ignored the guiding principles of impartiality and non-selectivity as defined in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.  What mattered for those countries was imposing selectivity, political manipulation and double-standards.  His delegation wanted to place on the record some problems of those who fancied themselves as great prosecutors of the world. 

The statement of the United States delegation was an unprecedented display of cynicism, he said.  While the United States continued to repeat its meaningless and hypocritical statements, the Bush administration claimed for itself the right to practice torture as a means to counter terrorism, to hold people in arbitrary detention, to spy on their own citizens and even to bomb cities in the name of liberty and democracy.  When analyzing the violations committed in the United States’ detention centre based in the illegally occupied territory in Guantánamo, it should be recalled that five special mechanisms of the Human Rights Commission had condemned that country’s attempt to legalize torture, he said.  United States society was a paradigm of police abuse, racial discrimination and xenophia, and overcrowded jails, he added.  The supposed champion of democracy and liberty had subjected Cuba to a genocidal economic, financial and commercial blockade in an attempt to strangle an entire people by hunger and illness.  In order to change the world’s situation it was necessary first to reverse the current unipolar, unjust and unequal world order, he stated.

ANDREAS D. MAVROYIANNIS ( Cyprus) said he hoped that the Human Rights Council would avoid the deficiencies of the Commission that had preceded it and effectively contribute to improving the implementation and promotion of respect for human rights worldwide.  Regarding his own country, he said that the ongoing occupation of 37 per cent of Cyprus’s territory after the Turkish invasion of 1974 had denied the fundamental human rights of refugees, relatives of missing persons and enclaved persons.  The religious and cultural heritage in the occupied part of Cyprus, attacks on the freedom of the press and other violations directed at Greek and Turkish Cypriots also came together to make a rather gloomy picture.

It was particularly disturbing when an occupying Power not only denied refugees their right to return to refugees, but exploited their property by offering it for sale to foreigners, impeding the settlement of the conflict.  Related to that issue was the implantation of settlers, which was a violation of the Geneva Conventions.  There could be no effective remedy to persistent violations of human rights in Cyprus without an end to the forcible division of the island along ethnic lines, contrary to its multi-ethnic character and the will of the Cypriot people.  Treating human rights as a trade-off for the achievement of other goals would dramatically undermine any problem-solving strategy.

ALEXANDRA PAPADOPOULOU ( Greece) said the invasion and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkey constituted a flagrant violation of international law and the fundamental freedoms and rights of the people of Cyprus.  One third of the population had been displaced and denied the right to return and to the enjoyment of their properties.  Living conditions for enclaved persons in the occupied areas remained a major concern for Greece and in particular the human rights situation of persons of Greek-Cypriot origin.

The issue of missing persons remained of primary importance to their relatives and to the Greek and Cypriot Governments, she said.  Regarding displaced persons, Turkey had yet to fully implement its commitments as set out by the European Court of Human Rights.  There had been a systematic destruction of cultural heritage, with more than 500 churches in ruins.  Prospects for a negotiated settlement had been hampered by the presence of more than 40,000 Turkish troops illegally stationed in Cyprus.  Respect for human rights and the rule of law had to be an integral part of any comprehensive, functional and sustainable solution to the Cyprus problem.

PRASAD KARIYAWASAM ( Sri Lanka) sought to address some concerns expressed by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the European Union, and to brief the Committee on recent developments in his country.  The recent escalation of violence in Sri Lanka was a result of the resumption of hostilities by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), including assassinations, suicide bombings, attacks on civilian targets and critical infrastructure, including water supplies, he said.  The Government, after exhausting all other peaceful options, had been constrained to take limited and targeted military action against the LTTE.  However, the Government remained committed to continuing the peace process and was pleased that peace talks with the LTTE were due to resume in Switzerland tomorrow, 28 October.

Regarding allegations of extrajudicial executions, disappearances and other reported violations of the right to life, the Government had established a National Commission of Inquiry and had invited an international independent group of eminent persons to observe its work, provide technical or other advice and submit independent reports directly to the President.  Criminal proceedings would be instituted against a particular person or group of persons upon the recommendation of the Commission.  He also highlighted a number of measures taken by the Government to ensure access for humanitarian aid, including work with United Nations agencies to transport essential items to the Jaffna Peninsula.

Noting his Government’s active engagement with the United Nations, he said that the Government had invited the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression to undertake missions.  In November, the Special Adviser of the Special Representative for children and armed conflict would visit Sri Lanka.

LUCA DALL’OGLIO, Permanent Observer of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), said that the positive contributions of migrants to their countries of origin and destination could be fully realized when their human rights were recognized and safeguarded.  Although 3 per cent of the world’s population lived outside their country of birth, many migrants had remained invisible, with the enjoyment of their rights severely limited.  Some migrants, usually skilled workers, had enjoyed a well-managed migration process and, therefore, faced few if any problems; on the other hand, unskilled workers -- who formed the majority of migrants -– had been more vulnerable to rights violations.

For the most vulnerable migrants, reality had entailed physical and psychological abuse, degrading treatment and working conditions, and unreported deaths and disappearances, he said.  That was perhaps no more evident than in the case of trafficking victims and equally among irregular migrants and those with tenuous legal status.  Addressing the human rights aspects of migration was not easy, but breaking the vicious cycle in which fear of detention and deportation prevented irregular migrants from reporting abuses –- abuses which, in turn, strengthened the hand of traffickers, smugglers and abusive employers -– was at the heart of an effective rights protection.  The same resolve shown by Governments in combating trafficking was needed to ensure that migration took place with safety and dignity.

TOSHIHIKO MURATA, Executive Officer of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Liaison Office with the United Nations, welcomed the adoption of the voluntary guidelines on the right to food by the General Assembly in March.  The guidelines were an extremely valuable instrument in assisting countries in the progressive realization of the right to adequate food.  The FAO had established a right to food unit in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and was focusing on five areas of action to promote that right:  advocacy and training, information and assessment, legislation and accountability, strategy and coordination, and benchmarks and monitoring.

He drew attention to innovative institutional mechanisms established by Brazil, Sierra Leone and Mozambique to implement the right to food.  In Brazil, for example, a National Rapporteur on Food, Water and Rural Land monitored the right to food situation and participated in a broad-based Food Security Council, which advised the President directly on policies.  The FAO looked forward to sharing lessons learned regarding implementation of the right to food and the voluntary guidelines in different countries that could be used to inspire others.  It was well known what it took to establish food security, he said.  The problem was that the hungry were also politically powerless and not heard in the planning, implementation and monitoring of programmes and policies.  A human rights-based approach to food security could empower rights holders to claim their human rights.

Statements in Right of Reply

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Sudan said the situation in Darfur continued to improve thanks to a peace agreement signed in May under the auspices of the African Union.  The statements made by the two delegations on Darfur did not serve to bolster security or improve understanding.  The United States was known as a large country and it was also large in terms of its violations of human rights.  The record in Guantanamo spoke for itself, not to mention secret prisons and discrimination against different nationalities within the United States, he said.  Meanwhile, Australia could not talk about human rights when it had committed horrible violations of the rights of indigenous people and when its society was marked by xenophobia and animosity towards Islam.  The Sudan did not need lessons from States who should focus on remedying their own shameful human rights records, he said, recalling an expression in his country that the “carpenter’s door was splintered”.

The representative of Zimbabwe also responded to the separate statements made by the United States and Australian delegations.  He said that the statement by the United States, a renowned global violator of human rights, had been made in a desperate bid to divert attention from itself.  He repeated that the incident to which the two delegations had referred in Zimbabwe were currently before the courts and that there was full respect for due process in his country.  The United States and Australia proceeded from the premise that anything done by them was right and they did not apply to themselves the same standards they applied to others.  He had read about anti-war protestors being beaten up in New York and in other places across the United States.  The Bush administration had trampled on the rights of citizens under the auspices of counter-terrorism efforts.  Unlike the world’s biggest exporter of torture, Zimbabwe did not maintain secret torture camps.  Australia meanwhile continued to trample on the rights of indigenous people.  The cause of human rights would be better served if the United States and Australia and other like-minded delegations stopped their posturing, he said.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he wanted to clarify the situation regarding Russian legislation regarding non-governmental organizations, a matter referred to in the statement of the United States.  Implementation of that law was being reviewed by civil society, the national congress and by international non-governmental organizations.  Experts from the Council of Europe had visited Moscow recently to examine the issue and were fully satisfied.  Already, 99 non-governmental organizations operating in the Russian Federation had successfully registered and another 96 had submitted documentation.  More than half of the registered organizations were American, including some well known ones such as the Ford Foundation and the Chamber of Commerce.  Any non-governmental organization with a clear conscience would not have any problem with the procedure required, he said.  The re-registration of Russian and foreign non-governmental organizations was being carried out in an open and free atmosphere comparable to practices in the majority of democratic countries and did not fall below international standards, he said.

Also responding to the statement made by the United States, the representative of Venezuela said it was difficult to regard the United States as a proper interlocutor on the issue of human rights as that country was a paramount violator of human rights.  One had only to think of the brutality and torture at Abu Ghraib and sophisticated torture methods used in Guantanamo.  Venezuela’s Constitution was clear and its laws were the result of genuine participatory democracy.  The bill on non-governmental organizations in Venezuela referred to earlier today encouraged participation by civil society.  The Supreme Court of Venezuela had said non-governmental organizations represented national interests and should not be used by foreigners for other purposes.  The National Endowment for Democracy and European foundations had participated in activities designed to destabilize the situation in Venezuela.  He recalled that there were several outstanding extradition requests for Venezuelans living in the United States who were suspected of involvement in terrorist acts.  It seemed that the United States believed that there were good terrorists and bad terrorists.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea referred to what he called the hypocrisy of the United States and Australia, which had pointed accusing fingers at other countries while pretending to be judges of human rights.  Those two countries had invaded other countries and killed civilians, including women and children.  It was to avert such a possibility that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had built up its national defences, including nuclear deterrents.  The United States and Australia should address their own affairs before accusing others.

The representative of Iran said no one could be indifferent to the situation of human rights in any part of the world.  Human rights were a collective responsibility, but they were not something new or invented by anybody.  All human beings had inherited fundamental rights and freedoms.  In reply to the representatives of the United States and Australia, he said that his Government had always accorded priority to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The representative of China said the representative of the United States had launched an unwarranted attack on his country and others in connection with human rights and that had been regrettable.  Progress in China’s human rights situation was there for all to see.  It was puzzling and disappointing that the United States delegation had been silent on its own serious human rights problems.  In the name of anti-terrorism, the United States had tightened its Internet controls, thus violating the privacy of its citizens, and it had impeded anti-war demonstrations.  The life of Muslims in the United States had become more difficult after the September 11 attacks and the rights of indigenous peoples had been systematically violated.  In addition, the United States had detained prisoners of war endlessly.  In Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the United States Army had killed innocent people and violated the most fundamental human rights, including the right to life.  The United States also refused verification by United Nations agencies and special mechanisms, thus invoking strong condemnation from the international community.

China hoped that the United States would not become a giant in words and a coward in deeds, he said.  The United States was advised to stop its unsubstantiated allegations; otherwise, to quote a Chinese saying, it would smash its own feet with its own stones.  The statement of its representative had strongly poisoned the atmosphere in the Committee and provoked confrontation on human rights, but it was still hoped that the Untied States would follow the principle of dialogue and cooperation governing the work of the Human Rights Council.  Otherwise it would be strongly condemned by the international community.

The representative of Turkey said he did not deem it necessary to respond to the representative of Cyprus, but he would respond to the representative of Greece whose statement had been full of accusations and distortions, which had neglected 11 years of suffering by Turkish Cypriots prior to 1974 as well as the ethnic cleansing plans of the Greek Cypriot leadership at the time.  Prior to 1974, the United Nations had tried without success to resolve the problem and there were no Turkish troops on the island then.  Turkey had intervened as a guarantor Power, after a coup in Cyprus in 1974 at the time of the military regime in Greece, to save Turkish Cypriots from total annihilation.  Human rights violations against Turkish Cypriots continued to the present; property had been confiscated, Turkish properties and cultural heritage had suffered, and Turkish Cypriots in Limmosol had been denied education in their own language.  It was hoped that those remarks would refresh the memories of the Greek and Cypriot colleagues.  Turkey would maintain its positive stance, but if there was to be a solution, others had to follow the same constructive stance.

The representative of Cyprus, responding to the Turkish representative’s response, said it was regrettable that, for another year, he had diverted attention away from the essence of the problem.  If the division of the island of Cyprus persisted, it was because the Turkish Army still occupied a significant part of the country and sustained an illegal secessionist entity.  All Turkey had to do was to withdraw and let Greek and Turkish Cypriots live together harmoniously.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record