Sixty-third General Assembly

Third Committee

30^th Meeting (AM)

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL’S UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM COULD CHANGE THIRD

COMMITTEE’S ROLE IN DEALING WITH SPECIFIC COUNTRIES, SAY SPEAKERS

Human Rights Education, Implementation of Disabilities Convention

Among Other Issues, as Debate Continues on Human Rights Promotion, Protection

Continuing its discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights, delegates to the Third Committee addressed a wide range of issues today, including how the Committee’s role in dealing with the human rights situations of specific countries might change, especially now that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the Human Rights Council was operational.

The representative of Japan, one of the first countries to undergo the Universal Periodic Review, said that the review was an effective mechanism, and, if States participated actively and implemented recommended measures, it would be successful in improving human rights situations all around the world.  Numerous delegates, throughout the discussion, expressed similar hopes regarding the impact of the process and its ability to ensure that concrete human rights actions were undertaken by States under review.

Some, including the representative from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, suggested that its impact might be even broader.  Noting the selective accusations made against developing countries in Third Committee discussions and, as a consequence, the “forcible adoption” of country-specific resolutions by the Committee, the representative said, with the Universal Review in full operation, that highly politicized practice should no longer be in place.

Such resolutions had, in the past, aggravated conflicts among countries and adversely affected international efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights, he said.  Indeed, at a conference in Tehran, in July 2008, the Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement adopted a document that referred specifically to the selective adoption of country-specific resolutions by the Committee, calling it a breach of the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity.

Similarly, the representative of Myanmar said that selective targeting of countries in the Third Committee was a matter of great concern, and -- while all States had the right to bring human rights issues to light -- the appropriate forum in which to raise such issues was within the Human Rights Council.  He added that those issues should be considered in a fair, balanced and objective manner, with attempts made to avoid politicization, selectivity and double standards.

Nevertheless, many delegates continued to voice concerns regarding the human rights situation in various countries, including the representative of the United States, who drew attention to the hundreds of millions of people who were denied fundamental freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association by their Governments.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should not be seen as a simple catalogue of rights; rather, it was a call to action.

The representative of Benin suggested that the first action to be taken towards the full achievement of human rights was for people to be made aware of their rights.  During the United Nations Decade on Human Rights Education, the international community had made some progress in spreading information about rights, but it needed to do more to seek out new approaches to give people “ownership” over their rights.  He called on Member States, the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner to establish human rights education programmes at the grass-roots level, in partnership with universities and other academic institutions.  For its part, Benin had proclaimed 2009 as the time for learning about human rights.

A number of delegates shared their strategies for raising awareness on the rights of persons living with disabilities, as laid out in the Convention.  The representative of Ethiopia, a country in which roughly 1 million people were living with disabilities, said that her Government had undertaken a number of legal and administrative measures to promote and protect the rights of those persons, including an education strategy to enable children with special needs to have equal education and training opportunities, and efforts to enable persons with disabilities to fully participate in political and socio-economic spheres.  The representative of Thailand described a regional initiative by the Asia-Pacific Development Centre on Disabilities to carry out capacity-building and community-based rehabilitation programmes to empower people with disabilities in the region, especially in developing countries.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Australia, Serbia, Argentina, Cyprus, Greece, Cameroon, Cuba, Ukraine and Nigeria.  Statements were also made by the representatives of the observer missions of the Holy See and Palestine. 

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of the Russian Federation, Eritrea, Myanmar, Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Turkey and China.

The Committee is expected to conclude its general discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights tomorrow, 30 October, at 10 a.m., and to take up the report of the Human Rights Council.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to conclude its general discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights (for background, see press release GA/SHC/3925 of 22 October).

Statements

LARA NASSAU ( Australia) said her country had a long history of involvement with the United Nations in promoting human rights, with a former Foreign Minister playing a significant role in the creation of the Organization and its Charter.  It also had a long tradition of supporting human rights globally, and had extended a standing invitation to special procedures wishing to investigate the protection of human rights in Australia.  The Prime Minister’s apology to indigenous Australians -- the Stolen Generations -- in February, had provided a “positive and healing experience” to unite all Australians, and had sent a message to the world that Australia was serious about both symbolic and practical steps towards reconciliation.  Another high priority was to assist people with disabilities, and her country had fast-tracked its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Beyond its borders, she said Australia was an active member of multilateral and regional efforts to promote tolerance and understanding.  Together with Indonesia, New Zealand and the Philippines, Australia was co-sponsoring a regional interfaith dialogue, drawing participants from major faiths in the region.  In terms of its cooperation with the Human Rights Council, Australia was scheduled to appear for its Universal Periodic Review in 2011.

She went on to express “grave” concerns about the situation in Myanmar, especially in the lead-up to the May constitutional referendum, where regime-affiliated organizations had engaged in intimidation and violence against groups advocating a “no” vote.  Australia urged the regime to release all political prisoners immediately and without condition, and repeated its call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.  She invited the regime to extend full cooperation to United Nations Special Envoy Gambari and Special Rapporteur Quintana.  She also expressed concern over situations in Darfur, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran and Fiji.  She urged the Government of Sudan to cooperate fully with the deployment of African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), and urged the Government of Fiji to return to democracy through elections, after hearing that Commodore Bainimarama, of the military regime there, had said he would not honour his commitment to hold elections by March.  She also expressed concern over the suppression of the freedom of expression and religion in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and discrimination against women, ethnic groups and the Baha’i religious minority groups in Iran.

DAVID J. KRAMER ( United States) said the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was widely accepted, because it embraced humanity in all its diversity and spoke directly to the desire for freedom.  No democracy, including the United States, was perfect.  Yet, there was a growing recognition that democracy was the only form of Government that could protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms set forth in the Declaration.  Turning to a number of country-specific situations, he said that, in Iran, the human rights situation continued to deteriorate, and since March 2007, the Government had tightened restrictions on independent media and continued to detain and abuse dissidents, and to hold scores of prisoners of conscience.  In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the human rights situation remained grave, and the Government controlled almost all aspects of citizens’ lives.  Returned migrants were treated severely, and, recently, it had been widely reported that 15 people had been publicly executed for attempting to flee the country.

He turned then to the situation in Burma/Myanmar, at which point, on a point of order, the representative of Myanmar asked the delegate from the United States to refer to the country as Myanmar, not the other name.

Resuming his statement, the representative from the United States said it was Government policy to use the name Burma/Myanmar, and, in that country, there were currently over 2,000 prisoners of conscience, and ethnic minorities continued to suffer severe discrimination and persecution.  In Syria, human rights activists, civil society organizers and other critics of the Government were routinely detained.  Similarly, in Uzbekistan, human rights and democracy activists, journalists and others remained targets of repression, and allegations of torture continued to be reported.  Turning to the African continent, he said that the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe had refused to implement the 15 September power-sharing agreement, and human rights violations in the country through the end of August had more than tripled from the previous year.  In Sudan, a genocidal campaign perpetrated by the Sudanese Armed Forces and other agents of the regime continued to kill, injure and displace civilians in Darfur.  As well, the Government continued to censor print and broadcast media and to harass its critics.

In Cuba, he said at least 219 prisoners of conscience remained incarcerated in deplorable conditions, and the Government had stepped up its practice of harassing dissidents by arresting, interrogating, and detaining them.

As the representative of the United States turned to the situation in Belarus, the representative of Cuba, on a point of order, pointed out the United States delegation had exceeded the time limit for country statements and asked that the Secretariat ensure that time limits were respected.

Continuing, the delegate from the United States said that the Government of Belarus continued to break up peaceful demonstrations, and to harass, arrest and beat opposition figures.  In the Russian Federation, onerous registration, tax requirements and “so-called extremism laws” constrained the legitimate, peaceful activities of non-governmental organizations, and members of the independent media had been the victims of violent, and even deadly, attacks.

On a point of order, the representative of the Russian Federation also drew attention to the fact that the delegate from the United States had exceeded his time limit.  Similarly, the representative of Iran, also on a point of order, asked for all delegations to be treated the same and be kept to the same time limits.

The representative of the United States then turned to the situation in China.

The representative of China, also on a point of order, asked for time limits to be respected by the delegation from the United States.  Iran’s delegate, speaking once more, asked for the rules of procedure to be respected and for the Chair to put an end to the statement by the United States.

While the delegate from the United States said he would try to finish his statements as quickly as possible, the representative of the Russian Federation, on another point of order, asked the Secretariat why an ongoing violation of time limits was being permitted.

Concluding his statements, the delegate from the United States expressed his regret over the “fastidious timekeepers” in the Committee who did not want to hear the views of his Government.  He said he would have preferred to continue his statement and to raise important issues, such as the weakening of country mandates and support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

CELESTINO MIGLIORE, Observer Mission of the Holy See, took the floor to begin his discussion on religious freedom.

The representative of Iran raised a point of order against the previous speaker regarding his comments to the Chair on the use of the names of countries, which had seemed to indicate that he would do as he wished, even after the Chair had reminded him of the correct rules of procedure.  In addition, he had ignored the Chair’s request to conclude his statement with one more sentence.

The Chair thanked the representative of Iran for his statement, saying he was certain that respective delegations would take that statement into consideration.

Mr. MIGLIORE of the Holy See, continuing with his statement, said that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion faced challenges in various regions of the world.  Recent armed attacks and destruction of religious structures against Christians in India, Iraq and other parts of the world indicated the dramatic consequences of the violation of that right.  They drew attention to the need for a timely and concerted effort at the legislative, executive and judiciary levels, to ensure that that right was defended and promoted.  Respecting that right meant being mindful that such freedom could not be coerced or limited on the basis of geography or cultures and traditions.

Further, he continued, individuals must be able to practice their faith and uphold it, or to change it, without fear of intimidation.  Educational systems of public and private schools, social organizations and religious communities must be informed by that principle.  A genuine spirit of human rights required Governments, religious communities and civil society to adopt that conviction and act accordingly.

He added that a component of religious tensions lay in the strategy aimed at destroying places of worship, as well as the educational, humanitarian and social structures run by communities of different religions.  Such criminal acts originated from the ideology of fundamentalism, which tended to be hostile to any other social force working at empowering the poor.  For some time, the Third Committee had seen an increased focus on the protection of religions from statements or actions that were perceived to defame religious symbols and institutions.

However, he added, in the current international context, the notion of defamation of religions risked removing the focus from a basic right of individuals and groups to the protection of institutions, symbols and ideas.  At a local level, it could lend itself to support for laws that penalized religious minorities and stifled legitimate dialogue among persons of different faiths and cultures.  While he supported the need to protect believers from hate speech and acts against their convictions, he thought such protection could be best achieved by effectively implementing the right of individuals and communities to religious freedom, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance.

WOINSHET TADESSE ( Ethiopia) took up the rights of disabled persons, saying her Government had taken a number of legal and administrative measures to ensure the proper protection and promotion of the rights of about 1 million people with disabilities.  The Government’s social development policy was meant to create a conducive environment to enable persons with disabilities to fully participate in the political and socio-economic life of the country, and was designed to focus on disease prevention.  In addition, a special needs education strategy was developed to enable children with special needs to have equal education and training opportunities.

She said that laws were in place to address discrimination against persons with disabilities in the workplace, while a national plan of action for the rehabilitation of disabled persons had also been put in place.  A multi-sector coordinating committee was working to secure the integration of disability issues into the country’s five-year national development plan.  In addition, the Government was taking steps to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which it signed in March 2007, and a national workshop was subsequently held in cooperation with the United Nations Human Rights regional office and the Ethiopian Human Rights Council to discuss possible next steps.

SLAVKO KRULJEVIĆ ( Serbia) said the Government of Serbia had re-established the national Ministry for Human and Minority Rights in June 2008, with the aim of promoting and protecting human rights.  Further, in December, Serbia would present its first country report to the Human Rights Council under the Universal Periodic Review.  However, all was not well on the human rights front in Serbia.  In the province of Kosovo and Metohija, currently administered by the United Nations, the human rights of Serbs and other non-Albanians continued to be trampled upon.  The status of non-Albanians had deteriorated in the wake of the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, due to a lack of legal security and a denial of basic health care, enjoyment of property and the right to education.

At the request of Serbia, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights called on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to provide information on the implementation of the Covenant in Kosovo and Metohija, he said.  That information was going to be considered at the forthcoming meeting of the Committee, in November.  The “bad situation” in the province had been confirmed by numerous international and regional organizations in their reports, as well as in the reports of respected non-governmental organizations.  Respect for human rights was a prerequisite for peace, security and development.  Only by ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms could stability and prosperity be attained.

JORGE ARGŰELLO ( Argentina) said the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be seen as an opportunity to reaffirm the rights of all persons, especially considering the current economic, financial and food crises.  The anniversary would also be an opportunity for the international community to move forward with defined commitments towards the protection and promotion of human rights.  The International Criminal Court was an essential tool in the fight against impunity, and its integrity should be respected at all times.  The creation of the Convention on Enforced Disappearances was also a landmark event, and, in support of the goals contained in the Convention, Argentina would present a draft resolution on the issue to the Committee.  Over the previous year, Argentina had ratified two fundamental instruments relating to the abolition of the death penalty.  Military justice reforms had also been undertaken, and now, the death penalty had been effectively abolished in the country.

In regard to the report before the Committee on the moratorium, he expressed his delegation’s desire to work with all Member States to ensure that countries that still had the death penalty might consider possible mechanisms to replace that penalty with life imprisonment.  At the end of 2006, Argentina had adopted a national plan against discrimination.  That plan was also part of the country’s foreign policy on human rights, and it included a complete rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation.  The first national survey of people with disabilities, conducted from 2001 to 2003, showed that about 1 in 5 households included a person living with a disability.  As such, he expressed his Government’s firm support for the new Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  In closing, he reaffirmed his Government’s support to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and for the Human Rights Council.

NADYA RASHEED, Observer Mission of Palestine, said the Palestinian reality was worse than ever before, with no indication of improvement.  The Israeli occupation was the root cause of all human rights violations against the Palestinian people, in violation of the Geneva Convention, relative to the protection of civilians in time of war, and numerous other rights-based documents.  Nearly a year ago, Palestinian and Israeli leaders had met in Annapolis to relaunch the negotiation process by the end of 2008.  At that time, Israel was called on to freeze settlements and to reduce the number of checkpoints it had along its border with Palestine.  But, in the past year, the reality had been the opposite, with the occupying Power intent on altering the territory’s character, status and demographic composition.  It was a reality in which all inalienable rights had been violated, and where killings by occupying forces continued unabated.  She called on the international community to hold Israel accountable for its actions and to end its exercise of impunity.

She said the occupying Power had demolished homes and destroyed Palestinian property and agricultural land at much higher rates in 2008 than 2007, causing people to be displaced.  It also continued to detain and imprison thousands of Palestinians, including children, with restricted access to family and legal representation.  Israel continued to confiscate Palestinian land by expanding its web of settlements, bypass roads and military instalments, sending a message that a two-State solution was not viable.  Attacks against people by settlers continued, with the protection of occupying forces and with complete impunity.  Four years after the International Court of Justice advisory opinion was pronounced on the separation wall, building still continued.  The impact of that wall and its associated regime of checkpoints brought about the isolation of communities, and impeded access to land and water of farmers, among other things.  The wall and checkpoints destroyed the contiguity of Palestinian territories, ruining its economy and social fabric.  She ended by calling for an end to the siege of Gaza, which was suffering high rates of poverty and unemployment.  The international community should take action to compel Israel to lift its siege and to uphold its obligations as an occupying Power.

PAK TOK HUN (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the most serious violation of human rights lay in acts of aggression and war that caused the deaths of innocent people, social chaos and poverty.  However, such inhumane acts were totally ignored, when discussing human rights issues.  Indeed, countries that killed innocent people under the pretext of the “war on terror” often complained “more than anyone else” about human rights violations of other countries.  A sure guarantee for the promotion and protection of human rights lay in safeguarding State sovereignty and ensuring social security and stability.  Equally important was the need to get rid of the practices of politicization and double standards in dealing with human rights issues.  No country or group of countries had a monopoly on human rights, and there was no “judge” or “accused” in the human rights arena.

“No unilateral or specific standard for dealing with human rights is acceptable in this world of different ideologies and systems,” he said.  A few Western countries were resorting to selective accusations against developing countries, thus politicizing the human rights issue.  The forcible adoption of country-specific resolutions in the Third Committee was an example of such acts.  Despite the presence of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, such politically motivated resolutions were still being presented, aggravating confrontations among countries.  To that end, he reminded the Committee of the final document adopted at the Conference of Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement, in Tehran in July, and its “deep concern over the continuation of the practice of selective adoption of country-specific resolutions in the Third Committee”.  Touching briefly on Japan’s grave violations of human rights committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the past, and against Koreans currently living in Japan, he said there could be no future for Japan without an apology and reparations for its past crimes, and an understanding of the current reality.

BERTIN BABADOUDOU ( Benin) said the issue of human rights was a development issue; the full enjoyment of human rights was a requirement for the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals.  Furthermore, sustainable development could only be ensured through the full achievement of all human rights at the grass-roots level.  But, as a first step, people must be made aware of their human rights.  To that end, the international community must seek out new approaches to give people “ownership” over their rights.  For its part, Benin had proclaimed next year as the time for learning about human rights.

He recalled that, during the United Nations Decade on Human Rights Education, the international community had made some progress in spreading information about rights, but more needed to be done.  In his opinion, the world must move beyond the confines of the formal education system to educate people on their rights.  It was believed that teaching people about their rights would improve their responsibility within the community.  He called on Member States, the Human Rights Council and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to establish programmes at the grass-roots levels, in partnership with universities and other academic institutions, to teach people more about their rights.

MINAS A. HADJIMICHAEL (Cyprus), aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union, confined his statements to specific national concerns, such as the occupation of a substantial part of his country’s territory by Turkish troops.  Such an occupation denied the people of Cyprus their basic right to a peaceful existence.  The violations of the human rights of Cypriots had been repeatedly condemned through a number of Security Council resolutions and by the European Court of Human Rights.  In addition, recent reports by the Office of the High Commissioner and by various Special Rapporteurs also drew attention to the human rights violations against the people of Cyprus.  In the aftermath of the Turkish invasion of 1974, thousands of people remained in the area occupied by Turkey, with the hope that they would be able to carry on with their normal way of life.  However, those hopes were soon frustrated, and the “enclaved people” have had to endure harassment by the occupying regime.

Turkey had also systematically and deliberately brought a large number of Turkish settlers into the region, in an effort to alter the demographic composition of the island, he said.  That transfer of persons was a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions and was a war crime, as stipulated in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.  In spite of some recent progress, the question of the determination of the fate of missing persons remained unresolved.  He urged the United Nations community to strengthen its efforts to bring the ongoing human rights violations against the people of Cyprus to an end, while noting that a solution to the Cyprus problem must come, primarily, from Cypriots themselves, based on the United Nations Security Council resolutions, the high-level agreements, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and the values and principles on which the European Union was founded.

DIMITRI ALEXANDRAKIS ( Greece) addressed the human rights situation in Cyprus, which underwent a Turkish invasion in 1974, and by which 37 per cent of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus was placed under occupation.  One-third of the island’s population continued to be displaced and was not allowed to exercise property rights in its ancestral homes; relatives of missing persons had not yet been given information concerning their loved ones; and the influx of Turkish settlers continued, in breach of the Geneva Conventions.  Some 40,000 Turkish troops were stationed illegally in Cyprus.  The smuggling of antiquities and icons continued, along with destruction of Cyprus’s Greek and Byzantine cultural and religious heritage.

He said negotiations between President Demetris Christofias and Turkish-Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat would begin on 3 September under the good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General, which Greece fully supported.  He looked forward to the conclusion of an agreement for the reunification of Cyprus on the basis of a “bizonal” and “bicommunal” federation, in accordance with Security Council resolutions and European Union principles.  But, he noted that the issue of missing persons remained crucial, and, for that reason, Greece would contribute financially to the activities of the bicommunal Committee on Missing Persons.  Turkey had not complied with the European Court of Human Rights rulings, which held Turkey responsible for violating the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to missing persons.  He asked Turkey to address that issue.

In addition, almost 200,000 Greek-Cypriots were displaced and lived as refugees in their own country.  Turkey had not provided information on the current status of Greek Cypriot properties in occupied areas, which had been aggravated by the illegal sales of Greek-Cypriot properties to foreign citizens.  Also, while Turkey had taken some measures with regard to educational and religious rights of the Greek Cypriot enclave, those measures came too late, since the total number of “enclaved” persons had gone down from 25,000 in 1974 to 500 today.

NAREELUC PAIRCHAIYAPOOM ( Thailand) said that the Human Rights Council and its relevant mechanisms had a critical role to play in enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Universal Periodic Review was also worthwhile in helping to ensure concrete human rights actions by States under review.  As such, States should cooperate fully with the mechanism, and the Council should ensure that the review of States be undertaken in a balanced, fair and objective manner, taking into account various factors and developments.  Thailand also supported the role of the special procedures as one of the most important mechanisms for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Nationally, she said the Government of Thailand had paid special attention to strengthening legislation and measures that promoted and protected the rights of women.  Employment legislation had also been amended to ensure the rights of migrant workers to social welfare and legal protections.  The rights of hill tribe people were also recognized in both the national criminal and civil codes.  Regionally, the Asia-Pacific Development Centre on Disabilities was carrying out capacity-building and community-based rehabilitation programmes to empower people with disabilities in the region, especially in developing countries.  To that end, she asked for the support of State parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for the Thai candidate to the Committee, Monthian Buntan.  Overall, a human rights approach was being mainstreamed, both nationally and regionally, and Thailand was a key supporter and the driving force for the establishment of an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) human rights body.

MICHEL TOMMO MONTHE ( Cameroon) said the reports and briefings given by the Special Rapporteurs had provided a good overview of human rights situations around the world.  But, it was clear that more needed to be done to further the promotion and protection of human rights.  He agreed with the new High Commissioner on Human Rights on the need to link “human rights” with the notion of “human dignity”, where people were protected from hunger and violence and were able to enjoy good health, housing and access to education.  He also shared her view regarding all rights being equal, including the right to development.

He noted that institutions and mechanisms had no value unless they brought about the full enjoyment of all human rights.  Cameroon saw great value in educating people about their rights, and in instilling the right attitude for maintaining a peaceful environment that was conducive to sustainable development.  The Subregional Center for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa had been of great assistance in helping build the capacity of civil society and state bodies in his country and the wider region to improve its “human rights culture”.  It had also helped train policemen, enabling them to participate in peacekeeping activities.  It had also supported the Government’s human rights education policy, under which a human rights textbook was introduced to 50 primary schools on a pilot basis last year.

Turning to the report concerning the country’s legal and prison system, he said his Government was aware of the problems highlighted by the report.  In response, it would build new prisons in the main cities, and was training and retraining armed forces personnel and police, prison staff and other people in the legal system, on the importance of human rights.  He welcomed the new resolution before the General Assembly, which would call for an increase in resources for the Subregional Centre.  Indeed, when food and fuel prices rose earlier in the year, the Government had had to intervene to push prices down, at a great cost to itself.  He hoped that when future budgets were discussed, a separate item would be set out to be submitted to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions for consideration.

DAVID FUNDORA NAVARRO ( Cuba) expressed his dismay over the fact that the delegate from the United States had left the room and had decided not to listen to the views of other countries.  He had hoped that there would be a greater spirit of cooperation in the Third Committee today.  However, instead of promoting cooperation and dialogue, the “selfish Northern powers” had chosen to try to impose one single world view on other States.  The desire to stigmatize the people of the South through the manipulation of civil and political rights was done in an effort to increase the domination of the powerful countries, and such efforts were supported by an unjust international order.  Listening only to the arrogant and unfair references to countries of the South, one would assume that there were no problems in the North, especially in the United States, which was untrue.  The principle of universality and impartiality had been absent in many of the speeches.  Information on human rights in the United States was also always missing in the statements.  The United States was guilty of numerous violations against human rights, both within its borders and without.

He asked what lessons such a country could teach other nations.  In 2006, 7.4 million people were held in American prisons, with 3.2 per cent of the national population “behind bars”, according to Department of Justice figures.  Those numbers did not include foreigners held in prisons like Guantanamo or in secret prisons.  In addition, there had been no mention of the many Americans who did not have access to proper health care or the thousands of people who had been left to fend for themselves in the face of natural disasters.  Unlike Cuba, the United States did not open itself up to international scrutiny.  Turning to the statement made the previous day on behalf of the European Union, he said that statement had been politicized and was “selective, arrogant” and factually incorrect.   The European Union should talk about solving its own problems, instead of focusing on others.  Freedom and democracy were not the exclusive heritage of the North.  As such, Cuba would continue to fight against manipulations of human rights issues, in an effort to ensure the full promotion and protection of human rights for all.

YURII ONISCHENKO (Ukraine), aligning himself with the statement by the European Union, said human rights must be adopted as the third pillar of United Nations action on the ground.  But, he understood that that would require the exercise of political will.  Ukraine attached great importance to the harmonious coexistence of civilizations, and so had become part of the group of friends of the Alliance of Civilizations.  He reiterated Ukraine’s commitment to the full implementation of the rights of persons with disabilities, and that an international conference in Kiev to exchange best practices on that topic had just been concluded.  He welcomed the first Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was to be held very soon.

He said Ukraine had abolished capital punishment, and was party to the Second Optional Protocol on the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.  As such, he welcomed the resolution on the moratorium on the death penalty last year.  Finally, he noted that 2008 marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the great famine of the early 1930s, the Holomodor, organized by the totalitarian regime of the time.  That man-made famine led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, and the truth surrounding it had long been suppressed.  By making the truth surrounding those events more widely known, it might be possible to prevent similar catastrophes from happening in the future.  He called on international support in paying tribute to victims of the Holodomor.

T. MGBOKWERE ( Nigeria) said his country would undergo the Universal Periodic Review process in 2009, and preparations were being made towards that end.  While the Nigerian Constitution guaranteed a wide range of rights, the country continued to hold the view that the death penalty was a necessary and potent deterrent to crime.  That view had been made based on the understanding that it was the right of all sovereign States to determine and choose their social, economic, political and legal systems as appropriate, without any interference or coercion by other States or groups.  Extrajudicial executions and torture, however, was prohibited in Nigeria, and it had ratified several international conventions and regional instruments towards that end.  Arrangements were also underway towards the ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Prison decongestion and reform was an ongoing process in Nigeria, he continued.  Other legislative and justice sector reforms included a variety of amendments that would ensure access to justice, safety and security.  Constitutional and judicial measures protected the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the constitution allowed all persons to change their religious beliefs or to manifest their belief in worship, teachings, practice and observance, either alone or with others.  The health and welfare of Nigerians was also a major priority area, and, over the previous five years, the Government had increasingly focused attention on programmes and strategies on that issue.  In spite of the diverse sociocultural complexities of its people, the Government remained committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, and concerted efforts had been made to build a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for the protection of those rights.  The success of the Government towards that goal had been due, largely, to the collaborative and cooperative efforts of its development partners, donor agencies and the initiatives organized by national civil society and non-governmental organizations.

NORIHIRO OKUDA ( Japan) recalled that the Universal Declaration was written to promote the protection of basic freedoms, and, as a result, far more people around the world today lived in societies where their basic rights were protected.  He expected the Human Rights Council to be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, and that it would devote itself with dialogue and cooperation, focusing on the implementation of measures to improve human rights situations on the ground.  Japan was reviewed by the Council in May, and it supported efforts by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to increase its presence on ground, as a means of better providing assistance to countries.

He said Japan believed in dialogue and cooperation as the best means of promoting human rights.  Recently, it had participated in a dialogue with Cambodia, where the two Governments worked to draft a civil code and civil procedure act, and where the two helped move the Khmer Rouge Trials forward.  Japan further welcomed the initiatives of the Sri Lanka Government in drafting a national action plan on human rights, and expected that that Government would work to protect internally displaced persons.  Turning to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he pointed to systematic human rights violations in that country, as indicated by the Special Rapporteur on that country.  The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should provide a concrete response to those charges.  It had not yet implemented its commitment to commence an investigation into the abduction issue.  For its part, the Government of Japan was committed to pursuing its policy of normalizing its relationship with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in accordance with the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration.

He said Japan appreciated the Government of Myanmar’s decision to receive the visit of Special Rapporteur Quintana.  It was hoped that cooperation would also be extended to Special Adviser Gambari, so that those individuals could continue to engage the country in dialogue and concrete action, with the aim of bringing about democratization and an improvement in that country’s human rights situation.

Right of reply

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of the Russian Federation said that the statement made by the Georgian delegation the day before was unfounded, and he advised the delegate from Georgia to study more closely the reports from non-governmental organizations and other references to Georgia’s role in the conflict.  Over a long period of time, Georgia had refused to comply with its international commitments.  Now, there was a document prepared by the ombudsman of Georgia -- the publication of which was being delayed by the parliament of that country -- which detailed the many human rights violations committed by Georgia.  The document referred to the “great machinery of repression” in the country, and the threats and pressure exercised against the legal system and the courts to ensure that repression continued, further proof that the human rights violations were taking place.

The representative of Eritrea, reacting to the statement made the previous day by France, on behalf of the European Union, said that it was regrettable that some delegations were bent on continuing actions that had politicized the work of the Commission on Human Rights, in the past.  Such a political approach had been discarded and rejected, because of its lack of objectivity.  The Universal Periodic Review mechanism, newly in place, addressed the human rights situations of each country, and it was necessary to question why some countries continued to dwell on the old political approach, which had been discarded.  Eritrea was party to most of the international human rights conventions, and most of those conventions had already been internalized in the laws of the country.  “Let’s remove politics”, he said, and work towards a cooperative dialogue towards the full enjoyment of human rights, while avoiding “unhealthy” exchanges and accusations.

Myanmar’s delegate, speaking in exercise of right of reply to the statements made by France and the United States, said that, while all States had the right to bring human rights issues to light, those issues should be considered in a fair, balanced and objective manner, and attempts should be made to avoid politicization, selectivity and double standards.  The selective targeting of some countries was of great concern, since the appropriate forum to deal with such issues was within the Human Rights Council.  The Council was thus the logical forum in which to consider the human rights situation in Myanmar, and, to that end, his country was cooperating with that body and its special procedures.  His delegation had been very disturbed by the European Union’s attempt to politicize the events that occurred when Cyclone Nargis hit his country, and he pointed out that even the Secretary-General had noted that the people of Myanmar had shown extraordinary courage throughout the events, and immediately after, and he had also acknowledged the functioning relief programme that had been implemented.

Continuing, he said that Myanmar was not a threat to international peace and security, and that any attempt to put his country’s issues on the United Nations Security Council agenda would be contrary to Article 24 of the United Nations Charter.  He also expressed his regret over the refusal of some countries to acknowledge his country by its official name, saying that such acts were a mark of deep disrespect.

The representative of Iran then spoke in reply to the statements by the United States and Australia.  Turning first to the representative of the United States, he pointed out that that country had seen a dramatic increase in violations of the right to life, the conduct of racism, the conduct of torture, and the infringement of civil liberties.  Regarding its violations of the right to life, he recalled that United States air strikes had killed 500 civilians in Afghanistan since 2006, including 47 Afghans attending a wedding in July.  In terms of racism, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination had expressed concern in May over discrimination shown to the Latino and African-American community, in the form of de facto racial segregation in public schools and in the criminal justice system.

He went on to note that the United States’ use of torture as a method of interrogation had received wide international condemnation.  Waterboarding, for example, was “rampantly” used in different United States prisons.  The use of torture was recently reauthorized by the current American administration.  He touched, as well, on police brutality, which he said had increased, ever since the country embarked on its war on terror.  According to a recent report, the war on terror had created a climate of impunity in the realm of law enforcement, eroding accountability mechanisms that ensured civil control over law enforcement authorities.  He added that the United States was responsible for the violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, through its support for the Zionist regime.  As such, responsibility for the deteriorating situation in Gaza rested with the United States.

Turning to the statement made by the representative of Australia, he pointed to the deaths of indigenous people under Government custody, which had failed to ensure consistency in the elimination of torture throughout the country.  In addition, policy brutality against migrants, and their maltreatment by police and prison officials, had recently been reported.  It was difficult to imagine how countries with such human rights records could comfortably raise concerns regarding human rights violations in other parts of the world.

The representative of Sudan, speaking in response to the United States and Australia, began first by addressing the statement of the United States representative, saying he believed it had been disrespectful.  Regarding allegations of genocide in Darfur, he said neither the United Nations nor any other organization had confirmed its occurrence.  The United States wanted to play “world cop”, but Sudan would not accept its human rights advice, because it was a bad role model and often ruled by force, as evidenced by events at Guantanamo Bay.  Further, events at Abu Ghraib prison provided additional proof that the United States did not respect the precept of human dignity.  He urged the United States Government to examine its own human rights situation, and, accordingly, to “lift the pressure” off its own people.  They must end the use of listening devices which was introduced as a strategy in the war on terror.  In addition, the United States should put an end to discrimination against African-Americans and Latinos.

He said the United States’ image abroad was one of arrogance, where it would not hesitate to use force to protect its own interests.  Sudan would continue to exert efforts to reach a solution in Darfur, in partnership with those who loved peace, such as the United Nations, the African Union and the Arab League.  It would pursue that objective through Sudanese initiatives, with the help of partner countries such as Qatar.

With regard to the statement by the representative of Australia, he said that that Government’s show of concern for human rights violations in other parts of the world amounted to “throwing stones in a glass house”, given its attitude towards the indigenous population, immigrants and asylum seekers in its own country.

The representative of Zimbabwe, who spoke in reply to the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, said human rights could not be guaranteed in an environment of abject poverty, such as that which prevailed in her country.  That situation was brought about by sanctions imposed by certain developed countries on Zimbabwe, after the Government set about the equitable distribution of land.  Expressing the belief that a nation had the right to use its natural resources for its development, she rejected attempts by countries and blocs bent on infringing Zimbabwe’s sovereignty based on issues falsely presented as matters of human rights.  If the western powers had Zimbabwe’s well-being genuinely at heart, it would lift those sanctions.  The Government was aware of its responsibility to provide food in times of drought.  It had sought to cover its food deficits through imports and humanitarian assistance, such as through its partnership with the World Food Programme.

Taking the opportunity to update the Committee on the dialogue process in her country, she said the three major political parties had signed an agreement in September to create an inclusive Government.  Those parties were still consulting on its full implementation, and the South African Development Community (SADC) Troika had met the parties and made recommendations regarding the process to the full SADC summit.  She called on the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to respect that process.  She said she objected to deadlines and ultimatums being imposed on the Zimbabwe people by outsiders, who, in the process, were trying to influence the outcome.

The representative of Belarus, responding to the statement made by the United States, said that there were no political prisoners in the country, except for those who had clearly violated the national law.  At the same time, Belarus was developing a multiparty political system in the country, and 12 political parties had already been officially registered.  Those parties would receive support from the State as well.

In reference to the statement made by France on the previous day, he asked for Member States to refer to his country by its official name, and to use the proper spelling and pronunciation in statements.  While recognizing the possibility that the mispronunciation by France had been an error as opposed to a deliberate act, he said that such mispronunciation could be misleading to other delegations, and more attention should be made to avoid such circumstances.  Noting similar debates surrounding the official country names of other Member States, he asked that official names be used in all circumstances.

Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Turkey said that the statement made by Greece regarding the start of the “ Cyprus problem” was incorrect.  The problem did not start in 1974, as the delegate had said.  Proof of that could be found in the fact that the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus had been deployed in 1964, to stop the Greek Cypriots’ attacks on the Turkish Cypriots.  There had been a “collective loss of memory” of what happened between 1963 and 1974, and the actions of the Greek Cypriots during that time.  The delegate from Greece had failed to mention the notorious ethnic cleansing plan drafted by the Greek Cypriot leadership at the time, which was designed to deprive Turkish Cypriots of constitutional safeguards and to “hijack the State of Cyprus”.

Human rights violations against the Turkish Cypriots continued, he said.  In 2004, Turkish Cypriots had voted overwhelmingly in favour of the United Nations Settlement Plan.  Yet, they continued to live under unacceptable isolation and disenfranchisement.  The international community should give its full backing to the Turkish Cypriots by engaging in direct economic, commercial, social and cultural contacts with them.  He encouraged both sides to reach a fair and lasting comprehensive settlement, on the basis of the well-established United Nations parameters and the “body of work” developed.

The representative of China said he categorically rejected the groundless accusations made by the delegate from the United States in his statement.  China had always tried to protect the human rights of its people and had, in fact, made unprecedented progress in the field.  Regrettably, the United States’ delegate totally ignored that progress and, specifically, ignored the significance of the Beijing Olympics in relation to that progress.  However, such accusations would neither deter the Chinese people from their determination to promote human rights, nor deceive the people of the world.  Those accusations would only prove that the United States was trying to be the “human rights judge of the world”.  The delegate from the United States should take note of the grave violations of human rights in his own country, including racial discrimination and violations of the rights of indigenous groups, in regard to land and resources.  Arrogance, hypocrisy and double standards should be avoided in the current debate.  Instead, a spirit of fair-mindedness and objectivity should prevail.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record