ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT IN NAME, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, COUNCIL

 

THE SAME, THIRD COMMITTEE TOLD

 

Council Should Not Shy Away from Responsibilities Because of Politicized Criticism

As the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural) concluded its review of the report of the Human Rights Council this morning, hearing from some 20 speakers who were generally optimistic about the new organ, its tools and what real advances it might make, Israel’s representative said that the moral bankruptcy and numerous shortcomings of the dysfunctional Commission on Human Rights had not become ancient history; and although different in name, that Commission and the Human Rights Council were one and the same.

He said real burning situations were not reflected in Council deliberations which focused primarily on Israel, subjecting it to three special sessions and 12 discriminatory resolutions.  He accused the new organ of being blind to the human rights of Israelis and asked where its condemnation was of Palestinian terrorism against Israel?  Moreover, he questioned what had been done in response to calls by Iranian President, Mahmoud Admadinejad, for Israel’s destruction and for his denial of the Holocaust?  His country was not asking for special treatment, but like all other States, it should be subject to review and constructive criticism on a fair and impartial basis.  Human rights victims mattered; they were names and faces behind the issues, and “they are waiting for us to do the right thing,” he said.

The Observer for Palestine said in 40 years of occupation, the Palestinian people had experienced serious human rights violations, adding that International monitoring of the situation had yet to result in a change of behavior by the occupying Power.  She asked the Committee to imagine what could happen to Palestinians if they were deprived of international involvement.  Also the idea that focusing on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory represented selective treatment was self-contradictory.  That situation did not stand out by choice, but because of its painful reality.  The Council should not shy away from its responsibilities because of politicized criticism.  The situation had become a “test for the West” regarding its commitment to the human rights of the Palestinian people, she said.

The representative of the United States expressed concern that some appeared more determined to use the Council to defend abusive Governments than to protect the victims of human rights violations.  In that light, he cited the Council’s “relentless” focus on Israel and its elimination of special mandates on Belarus and Cuba as worrying issues. Commenting on the Universal Periodic Review, he said it could be a useful tool if used correctly, but it was not designed to respond to emergencies.  That was the job of the Council itself -- a new body that had yet to demonstrate that it could carry out its vital mandate to protect and advance human rights around the world.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, Cuba’s representative said his delegation knew what the United States opposed -- vis-à-vis the Human Rights Council - and it was a more inclusive and active organ than the old Commission, which had permitted silence on issues such as Guantanamo.  The United States wanted to return to a situation of dual standards, which had resulted in the abolition of the Commission.  In addition, he said nothing Israel said today came as a surprise, since that country was serving the interests of its closest ally.

The elements that made up the Council’s institution building package were praised by many, with many delegations agreeing on the principle of working towards the consolidation of the Council as the apex multilateral body dealing with the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide, as advocated by the representative of Sri Lanka.

The creation of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism would ensure regular examination of all countries, without prejudice, said the representative of the Netherlands.   Sri Lanka’s representative noted, however, that the Review was a cooperative mechanism which emphasized the need for objective and transparent assessment of a country’s human rights situation with the full involvement of that State.  Sharing best practices and providing technical assistance and capacity building – with the consent of the country concerned -- were other positive features of that Review.  It would have a far better chance of genuinely improving human rights situations than initiatives based on selectivity, partiality, “naming and shaming” and “intrusive monitoring,” she said.

The Human Rights Council’s mandate could not be fulfilled with only a thematic approach to issues; what was needed was ongoing debate and action, the representative of France underlined. 

And if the international community wanted to treat all human rights in a fair and just manner as well as on an equal footing, it also had to address the code of conduct for mandate holders and acknowledge the fact that it was guided by elected members, who would have to adhere to the highest standards of human rights, noted the representative of Syria.

Statements were also made today by the representatives of Myanmar, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Uganda, United Kingdom, Japan, Poland, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Mexico and Iran.

The representatives of the Sudan also spoke in exercise of the right to reply.

The Committee will meet again on Wednesday, 7 November, at 10 a.m. to begin its discussion of racism and its discussion on the right of peoples to self-determination.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today concluded its discussion of the report of the Human Rights Council.  For more background information, please see Press Release GA/SHC/3900.

MAHISHINI COLONNE ( Sri Lanka) said it was important for the Report of the Human Rights Council to be discussed in the Third Committee as that body had the requisite specialization to consider the Report in depth.  It was important to work towards the consolidation of the Council as the apex multilateral body that dealt with the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.  The Council’s approval, in June of this year, of its institution-building package was a positive development, she said.

The Universal Periodic Review was a cooperative mechanism which emphasized the need for objective and transparent assessment of a country’s human rights situation with the full involvement of that State.  Sharing best practices and providing technical assistance and capacity building – with the consent of the country concerned – were other positive features of the Review.  It would have a far better chance of genuinely improving human rights situations than initiatives based on selectivity, partiality, “naming and shaming” and “intrusive monitoring,” she said.   Sri Lanka was therefore pleased for its review in May next year.  A Human Rights Council which was free of political motives and genuinely committed to the promotion and protection of human rights through objectivity, fairness and equality was surely the desire, of all Member States, she said.

U THAUNG TUN ( Myanmar) said country-specific resolutions should have no place on the agenda of the Human Rights Council.  Human rights situations in all countries should be considered on an equal footing under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.  It was therefore regrettable that exploitation of the human rights mechanism for political purposes by some countries still lingered.  The existing system of special procedures had to be reviewed.  His country hoped the Council would ensure that mandate-holders abided strictly by the code of conduct that had been adopted, and carried out their work free from extraneous influence, incitement or pressure.  Human rights would not be promoted by reports from mandate-holders that relied on dubious sources.

The Council had to pay equal attention to the right of development as a human right, he said.  For developing countries, economic, social and cultural rights were no less urgent than civil and political rights.  He informed the Committee that the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro,had been invited to visit the country from 11 to 15 November.

GROVER JOSEPH REES ( United States) said that the United States was “concerned” that some appeared more determined to use the Human Rights Council to defend abusive Governments than to protect the victims of human rights violations. In particular, the Council’s “relentless” focus on Israel and its elimination of special mandates on Belarus and Cuba drew concern.  His country hoped the Council would focus its efforts promoting and protecting human rights under attack in some areas, including the freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association and freedom of expression.

The Council’s frequent meetings meant it would have to be willing to take on human rights situations as they developed, he said, even if that meant condemning the actions of a fellow Government.  The United States believed that the Universal Periodic Review could be a useful tool, if used correctly.  But he noted that it was not designed to respond to emergencies, which was the job of the Council itself.  Nor would it replace country-specific actions of special mandates, which were the United Nations’ “irreplaceable tool” for shining a light on abusive Governments.  The new body had yet to demonstrate that it could carry out its vital mandate to protect and advance human rights around the world.

DANIEL VOSGIEN (France), highlighting that his delegation aligned itself with the statement yesterday by Portugal on behalf of the European Union, said the examination of human rights situations on the ground was central to the mandate of the Human Rights Council.  That mandate could not be fulfilled with only a thematic approach to issues; what was needed was ongoing debate and action.  Special procedures experts had a primordial role to play; their expertise was the antenna by which the Council could “listen in” to the real world; a re-examination of their mandates should lead to a strengthening of the system.

Notwithstanding the report that the Human Rights Council had submitted on its activities, it was essential that the General Assembly, through its relevant committees, continue to debate human rights issues, as spelled out in Article 10 of the United Nations Charter.  In that regard, the Third Committee had an indispensable role to complete and support the work of the Human Rights Council.

ZÉNON MUKONGO ( Democratic Republic of the Congo) said that for the Universal Periodic Review mechanism to be efficient, the errors of the past would have to be avoided, notably by conducting the process in an objective, transparent, non-selective and non-politicized way that did not place an excessive burden on the concerned State.  The mandate of Titinga Frédéric Pacéré, the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was one of the four mandates which had been transmitted to the framework of the Human Rights Council.  His delegation also highlighted that the situation in their country had improved, as he cited the first free elections after 40 years as an example. 

Given the current socio-political and economic context of his country, his delegation had questions about the relevance of the mandate of the Independent Expert.  He expressed doubts about the efficiency of the current structure.  Besides the speeches, endless resolutions and reports, the international community needed concrete results.  The Democratic Republic of the Congo wanted the Independent Expert’s advice to become a reality.  Several factors called for a review of Mr. Pacéré’s mandate, he said.  With the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review, the situation in his country could be examined just like any country in the world.

DAN GILLERMAN ( Israel) said the moral bankruptcy and numerous shortcomings of the dysfunctional Commission on Human Rights had not become ancient history; although different in name, the Commission and the Human Rights Council were one and the same.  The real burning situations had not been reflected in the Council’s deliberations.  It had focused primarily on Israel, subjecting it to three special sessions and 12 discriminatory, one-sided resolutions.  Myanmar and Darfur had so far been the only other country-specific situations addressed by the Council; in the case of Darfur, it had the audacity to congratulate the Sudan for its cooperation.  The Council had been blind to the human rights of Israelis.  Where was the body’s condemnation of Palestinian terrorism against Israel; what did it have to say last July during the unprovoked bombardments of Israel’s northern border towns; and what had it done in response to calls by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Admadinejad, for Israel’s destruction and for his denial of the Holocaust?

The Council’s membership included some countries whose own human rights fell markedly below the standards of the international community, he said.  According to Freedom House, more than half of its 47 members were “not free” or “partially free.”  Many of those same countries had a political agenda that precluded the State of Israel.  Under the new institution-building package, special rapporteurs on human rights violations in Cuba and Belarus had been eliminated, while Israel had become a standing agenda item, as it had been for the Commission on Human Rights.  Other human rights situations from around the world had been crammed into one single agenda item.  Israel was not asking for special treatment but like all other countries, it should be subject to review and constructive criticism on a fair and impartial basis.  His country would call for a vote on the institution-building package, and also appeal to Member States to consider what message they would be sending with their votes.  Compromise was detrimental to the protection of human rights.  There was a moment to put political expediency and cynicism aside.  Human rights victims mattered; they were names and faces behind the issues, and “they are waiting for us to do the right thing”.

MAGED A. ABDELAZIZ ( Egypt ) said the establishment of the Human Rights Council last year signalled the beginning of a “new, long-awaited era”, in which the international community aspired to eliminate obstacles that had restrained its action on consolidating the universal respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  He welcomed the adoption of the Council’s working methods and rules of procedure, as well as its agreement on the Agenda, and underlined the importance of implementing the Universal Review Mechanism in all States.  That mechanism should be carried out with the participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society. 

Egypt looked forward to initiating the implementation of the Code of Conduct for the Special Procedures, the process of reviewing the mandates, and the development of the mechanisms to deal with complaints as early as possible.  He said that was essential to enable the Council to fully assume its role.  It was therefore imperative to provide the financial resources necessary for the Council to undertake its activities -- 11.9 million dollars.  He called on all States to give their support.  He said it was also important for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to not unnecessarily expand its authority to supersede the mandate of the Council or the Third Committee. 

There was an increasing tendency by some States to “bestow upon themselves the custodianship of human rights in the world, with no qualifying substantive or legal grounds”.  It was particularly worrying since those States who did so, committed violations in their own societies.  The international community must be keener on emphasizing the cooperative notion in dealing with human rights issues, based on mutual respect and within a framework of commitment to equality of rights and obligations.

FRANCIS K.BUTAGIRA ( Uganda) noted that necessary consensus had been reached as the Human Rights Council finalized the establishment of its own institutional mechanisms.  He commended all delegations for showing flexibility.  He also noted that the Council had continued to adopt the guidelines and modalities that would underpin its institutional architecture.  The institution-building package was an innovative mechanism:  the structure consisted, for the first time, of a Universal Periodic Review Mechanism and a Code of Conduct for mandate holders.  It retained special procedures and introduced reforms to the Council’s Advisory Committee and the Complaint Procedure.  The institution-building text was a product of a delicately negotiated compromise that took into account competing interests, but sought to strike common ground.  It was therefore a laudable effort.

On the agenda and programme of work, he noted the inclusion of the right to development as well as the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  The greatest threat to full enjoyment of all human rights was deprivation through poverty and looked forward to the work of the Working Group on that issue while pledging his support to its objectives.  The introduction of the universal periodic review cycle would mark the beginning of engagement on human rights issues without resort to selectivity, double standards and politicization.  The Council would be the proper forum for the discussion of all issues, but in a manner that would promote dialogue and cooperation.  To promote system-wide coherence, the Council’s work should not be duplicated in other forms.  Instead, the Council should be invested with trust and confidence, so that it could fulfil its responsibility.

KAREN PIERCE ( United Kingdom), aligning her delegation with the position of the European Union, recalled that her country had strongly supported the establishment of the Human Rights Council.  The Council had shown that it could be effective in the face of urgent human rights abuses.  The long-overdue invitation to the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, was welcome.  If ongoing work and dialogue between some of the Council’s expert mechanisms and the Government of the Sudan led to change on the ground, it would represent real progress in addressing a desperate human rights and humanitarian situation, although it was regrettable that the Council’s High-Level Assessment Mission had not been able to visit that country.

Important thematic work had been undertaken by the Council, she said.  The consensus decision to create a Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery was particularly welcomed by the United Kingdom.  Everyone, however, had the capacity to work harder to make the Council a success.  While it could have included stronger measures, the institution-building package was a valuable opportunity for international human rights and a platform on which to build in the years to come.  If implemented effectively, the Universal Periodic Review had the potential to increase the transparency and thoroughness of the Council’s work.  It was hoped that the Council would be able to address all specific human rights situations in an objective and non-selective manner; with that in mind, the singling out of one situation on the Council’s permanent agenda had been very disappointing.  So too had been the non-continuation of two mandates of special rapporteurs on human rights situations that were still of concern.

WARIF HALABI ( Syria) said that her delegation welcomed the adoption of the resolution on the violations of human rights in the Syrian Golan and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  She pointed out that Israel had refused to implement all the resolutions of the Security Council.  Addressing ways and means of protecting civilians from Israeli aggression, she welcomed the introduction of a special item on Palestine, aimed at ending the grave violations of human rights.  It was also incumbent to acknowledge the adoption of the institution building package of the Human Rights Council, which took steps to complete the establishment of new structures and institutions.  In order for the Universal Periodic Review to be a cooperative mechanism, and for it to carry out its work in an interactive, constructive and fruitful manner, it would have to ensure equal treatment of all States and urgent human rights situations. 

All human rights were universal and indivisible.  If the international community wanted to treat all human rights in a fair and just manner as well as on an equal footing, it also had to address the code of conduct for mandate holders and acknowledge the fact that it was guided by elected members, who would have to adhere to the highest standards of human rights.  There had to be greater importance accorded to OHCHR, which should be supervised and followed by the Council to avoid duplication.  She emphasized that objective, responsible dialogue based on mutual respect was essential to promote international cooperation in human rights.

TAKAHIRO SHINYO ( Japan) said the Commission for Human Rights had contributed to a general improvement in the global human rights situation by establishing norms and addressing violations wherever they occurred.  Grave violations, however, were still being committed and the international community should remain vigilant and take action when necessary.  The creation of the Human Rights Council had helped to mainstream human rights in United Nations activities.  The Council’s report, which laid the foundation for its work in the future, should be endorsed by the Third Committee and the General Assembly.  He welcomed the Universal Periodic Review as a unique and distinct mechanism that could address the human rights situation of all Member States without discrimination or favour.  In May 2008, Japan would become one of the first countries to be reviewed with that new mechanism.  His Government intended to cooperate fully with the review process and he urged all Member States to do the same.  The Special Procedures retained also contributed to the effective functioning of the Council.  He added that it was necessary to take the history, tradition and culture into account when addressing countries in which alleged human rights violations had taken place.

The Council was expected to build the capacity of States to implement principles, rules and standards to promote and protect human rights, he said.  To that end, the international community should support States that were improving their human rights situations by advancing democracy and strengthening the rule of law.  When a country had strong democratic institutions, it contributed to peace and prosperity at home and abroad.  If the Council found a way to foster a new spirit of international cooperation and established a set of best practices to address human rights issues, in particular massive and grave violations, the international community would be better equipped to act decisively, swiftly and in a manner tailored to each specific situation.  The international community had the responsibility to ensure that the Council helped to strengthen the capacity of States to comply with their human rights obligations.  As a member of the Council, Japan was committed to playing an active and constructive role to achieve that goal.

ROBERT-JAN SIEBEN ( Netherlands) said the Human Rights Council was the most important international body to discuss human rights issues.  His country had supported its creation in 2006, since it signified the importance of human rights as one of the three pillars of the United Nations and put human rights on an equal footing with security and development. The Netherlands favoured a strong and ambitious mandate for the Council. During its first year, the Council had focussed on institution building and he welcomed the fact that an agreement was reached on 19 June in Geneva.  His delegation also welcomed several elements of that package, including the creation of a mechanism for Universal Periodic Review, which would ensure regular examination of all countries, without prejudice; the continuation of an independent system of special procedures and the continuation of thematic and country mandates; and the continuation of the important contribution to the work of the Council by civil society and non-governmental organizations.

At the same time, the Netherlands deplored the discontinuance of the mandates on Belarus and Cuba, which gave the wrong signal as the situation in both countries had long been of concern and needed to be discussed and scrutinised by the Council, he continued.  He also deplored the fact that the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures was redundant and said that the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and other occupied Arab territories should not have been singled out in the Council’s agenda.

Netherlands, as a member and Vice-President of the Council, remained strongly committed to making it as effective and as credible as possible, he went on. It supported the institutional package as a compromise and believed that the full implementation of the package was crucial.

MAGDALENA GRABIANOWSKA ( Poland) said that, while supporting the statement delivered by Portugal on behalf of the European Union, she wanted to make additional comments on the institution-building package.  Her country was not fully satisfied with the package; it deeply regretted that it did not retain all the mandates of the special procedures.  In particular, country mandates had not been included in the package, and had therefore de factor been eradicated without even being reviewed.  It was difficult to see any justification for such a decision.

It was also regrettable that certain mandates were considered to be more important that others, she said.  All mandates should be reviewed in a proper way, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251 which created the Human Rights Council.  But despite its shortcomings, the package should not be reopened at this stage.  The focus now should be on its full implementation.  It was Poland’s sincere hope that the Council would live up to its responsibility to promote universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

FEDA ABDELHADY, Observer for Palestine, said the establishment of the Human Rights Council offered the citizens of the world, particularly the most vulnerable, renewed expectations that it would restore confidence in the value, if not the supremacy of international law.  It also generated optimism that human rights instruments would be applied impartially.  It was Palestine’s hope that the efforts of the Human Rights Council would allow it to uphold the responsibilities entrusted to it on the basis of universal coverage and equal treatment of all States, and put human rights abusers on notice.  The introduction of an item in the institution-building package of the Council on the human rights situation in Palestine was of particular importance to the Palestinian people, she said.

In the 40 years of occupation, the Palestinian people had experienced serious violations of their human rights.  The legal and moral role of the United Nations and the international community in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had to continue receiving special attention until the occupation ended.  International monitoring of the human rights situation in Palestine had yet to result in a change of behaviour by the occupying power, she said, and asked the Committee to imagine what could happen to Palestinians if they were deprived of international involvement.  Also the idea that focusing on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory represented selective treatment was self-contradictory.  That situation did not stand out by choice, but because of its painful reality.  The Council should not shy away from its responsibilities because of politicized criticism.  Finally, quoting the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, she said the situation had become a “test for the West” regarding its commitment to the human rights of the Palestinian people.

JOSE ANTONIO MORATO TAVARES, the representative of Indonesia, said that his country was keen to see the emergence of a fresher approach to advance human rights.  It wished to see the Council promoting a culture of dialogue and international cooperating in advancing the cause of those rights worldwide.  The cooperative nature of that body’s work would promote greater confidence among Member States in the human rights machinery of the United Nations; it would also make it possible for the Council to provide a pool of resources and expertise for Member States seeking assistance to strengthen their capacities in human rights.

Indonesia had been a founding member of the Council, he said.  The universal Periodic Review was once of the most significant aspects of the institution-building process; it was a crucial development achieved through the collective work of Member States, and deserved the full support of the General Assembly.  Indonesia supported the allocation of the report of the Human Rights Council to the Third Committee, as it gave meaningful opportunity for the membership of the United Nations in general to have a say in the Council’s work.  Detailed arrangements nevertheless had to be developed to ensure that the Committee could deliver added value to the work of the Council.

MARIA ELENA MEDAL ( Nicaragua) said her delegation celebrated the institution-building of the Human Rights Council, and hoped this new organ’s functions, such as the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, the thematic and social procedures, and the complaints procedure, among others, would strengthen all human rights everywhere.   Nicaragua trusted the new institutional architecture would facilitate an evaluation process based on universality, objectivity and non-selectivity.  This would ensure greater promotion of human rights, which constituted -- along with peace and development -- the three pillars that sustained “our organization.”

The Universal Periodic Review would be implemented next year, in a spirit of cooperation with Governments.  Addressing the code of conduct for special procedures-holders, she said that code would contribute to the quality of special reports.  In turn, her delegation expressed hopes that particular attention would be paid to the review and implementation of mandates, to avoid duplication of work.  Turning to the promotion of human rights, as a member of the Council, Nicaragua would use the new human rights machinery in order to promote economic, social and cultural rights, to ensure they had equal importance as political and social rights.

CLAUDE HELLER ( Mexico) called the creation of the Human Rights Council one of the most tangible results of the Organization’s reform in 2005.  That body had been demonstrating its capacity to act, as the forum that oriented dialogue and guided international action on human rights issues.  Although the agreement on institution-building, reached by the Council last June, might not have been perfect, it was a reflection of a broad and inclusive consultation process.  He said the establishment of the Council had responded to the need to eradicate the politicization and selectivity that prevailed in the work of the previous Human Rights Commission, as well as to the importance of promoting and implementing the equal obligations assumed by States on civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.  The establishment of the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism was a historical step in that direction.  The recent presentation of various candidates who submitted themselves to this mechanism proved that cooperation and dialogue were replacing political objectives and double standards.  Highlighting the case of Myanmar, he welcomed the Council’s capacity to react to emergencies by convening special sessions.  Strengthening the system of special procedures would be translated into tangible effects in the field by promoting a higher level of coordination among these procedures and ensuring a clear link between the Council’s recommendations and their implementation.

He said the success of the Council was proportional to the degree of political commitment assumed by States.  For that reason, he noted the “a priori” criticisms of the Council’s work, which would undermine its legitimacy and question the treatment of the human rights agenda within the Organization.  All States had an obligation to participate in the Council’s work and it was indispensable that the Assembly begin a constructive discussion on the division of work between the Third Committee and the Council, as soon as possible, to consolidate articulated interaction and avoid duplication of functions and initiatives.  The importance that some delegations conferred to reaffirming the Council as a subsidiary body of the Assembly should not weaken its authority or undermine the credibility of its decisions.

MAHMOUD KHANI JOOYABAD ( Iran) expressed satisfaction that the Human Rights Council’s institution-building package had been adopted by consensus stating that it would be counter-productive to reopen it for further negotiations.  His country could live with it, but it wished to reserve its position vis-à-vis some issues of concern.  Sovereign states were only accountable to their legal commitments and their voluntary pledges.  In light of that observation, the Universal Periodic Review had to ensure equal treatment in a non-selective and non-politicized manner.  Iran welcomed the adoption of a Code of Conduct for mandate-holders and supported the streamlining of the thematic mandate holders so as to prevent overlapping and to give more impetus to thematic issues pertaining to economic, social and cultural rights.

The confidential nature of complaint procedures had to be preserved at all stages, with restricted application of the admissibility criteria, he said.  The mandate on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory must be valid until the end of the occupation.  Inclusion of separate agenda items on combating racism and on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian territory was appreciated.  Iran, however, was concerned by such agenda items as “human rights situations requiring attention of the Council” as well as country-specific mandates, -- a legacy of the Commission of Human Rights reminiscent of a selective policy of name-and-blame.

He then made reference to remarks made by the representative of the “occupying Power”.

The representative of Israel, on a point of order, said he thought that it was customary for countries to be referred to by their names.

The Committee Chairman, RAYMOND WOLFE ( Jamaica), then asked delegations to refer to countries by their official names.  Mr. JOOYBAD resumed his remarks, saying that misleading quotations and rumours could never justify a barbaric occupation and violation of human rights.

Rights of Reply

The representative of Cuba took the floor to say that his delegation knew what the United States opposed – vis-à-vis the Human Rights Council - was that it was a more inclusive and active organ than the old Commission, which had permitted silence on issues such as Guantanamo Bay.  The United States wanted to return to a situation of dual standards, which had resulted in the abolition of the Commission.  Furthermore, it did not want the international community to support Cuba’s membership of the Council.  In addition, he said nothing Israel said came as a surprise, since that country was serving the interests of its closest ally.

The representative of the Sudan reminded France that his Government had made great efforts to end the suffering of the people of Darfur, for instance by creating a national human rights council and authorizing non-governmental organizations to work in camps for refugees and internally displaced persons.  He asked what France had done to get the various leaders to participate in the current peace negotiations, and said that country was using a double standard to let criminals traffic children.  The ones responsible for the trafficking had received a presidential pardon instead of a fair, just and transparent judgment.   France should let “these people” be judged in the country where they carried out their crime, he said.  Addressing the Israeli statement, he stated that country had once again reaffirmed that it was completely isolated, and was not satisfied that the Sudan had been congratulated for its cooperation with the international community.  His delegation reaffirmed the Sudan’s commitment to a serious, fruitful dialogue that strengthened human rights throughout the world, he said.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record