As General Assembly Takes up Report, Delegations Caution Human Rights Council against Politicization, Urge Equal Weight Be Given for Right to Development

Remaining Member for International Court of Justice Elected

As the General Assembly today took up the report of the Human Rights Council, nearly 30 delegations, the majority from developing countries, urged that body to guard against politicization of its work, with many calling for equal weight to be given to the right to development, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.

Introducing the report, Human Rights Council President Baudelaire Ndong Ella of Gabon emphasized that the eighth cycle of the presidency had taken place in a difficult international context involving many non-State actors.  He pointed out that there had been a 100 per cent participation rate of reviewed countries, and that the universal periodic review (UPR) system was an essential pillar of the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Council had carefully followed the situation of human rights a number of countries, including Eritrea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Syria, as well as Iraq and Sri Lanka.

General Assembly President Sam Kutesa of Uganda also underscored that, since its establishment in 2006, the Council had given voice to the most vulnerable, including women and children, and persons with disabilities.  The support of the General Assembly was essential to ensure that the Human Rights Council fulfilled its mandate.

However, Eritrea’s representative, while noting that the universal periodic review remained a valid mechanism in enhancing dialogue between Member States, cautioned that since the disbanding of the Commission and the formation of the Council, history was repeating itself.  The Council was, again, becoming a forum for some countries to advance their interests and geopolitical agendas.  It must follow a clear procedure that would safeguard it from certain politically motivated resolutions under the pretext of human rights violations.  It must also base its decisions on concrete information and evidence.

The representative of India added that, given the adverse effects of the global economic and financial crisis on human rights, the Council must give equal emphasis to economic, social and cultural rights, with Kyrgyzstan’s delegate calling for more attention to be paid to capacity-building assistance at the country level, with a focus on such areas as the right to development, as well.

Sri Lanka’s representative stressed that the way in which the Council had begun to target specific countries selectively did not bode well for its future.  It was unfortunate that his country had become the subject of a resolution despite its significant efforts in addressing issues arising from conflict and promoting reconciliation and reconstruction.

Nonetheless, the delegate of the Philippines observed that the growing number of special procedures mandates, together with the multitude of adopted resolutions, illustrated the increasing complexity of human rights issues, describing them as a “web of violations of economic, social, cultural and civil and political rights”.

Colombia’s representative added that he did not agree with criticisms of bias.  The Council had been able to find areas of agreement where the international community could work collectively.

Echoing that Montenegro’s representative pointing out that the Human Rights Council’s contributions were even more important and relevant in situations where the Security Council was unable to provide a timely response to emergencies.

The General Assembly also elected, in one uncontested round of voting, Robert Lipton Robinson of Jamaica as the final remaining member to the International Court of Justice.

Other speakers today were representatives of Kuwait, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Syria, Mauritania (on behalf of the African Group), Nigeria, Malaysia, Russian Federation, Qatar, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Costa Rica, Cuba, Iraq, Morocco, Mexico, Sudan, Norway and Maldives.  The representative of the European Union Delegation also spoke.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were representatives of Israel, Syria and Qatar.

The General Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 18 November, to take up draft resolutions on comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, as well as to hear the Report of the Fifth Committee on the Programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015.  The General Assembly will also make appointments to fill vacancies in subsidiary organs and other appointments.

Background

The General Assembly today would consider the Report of the Human Rights Council (document A/69/53) and its Addendum (document A/69/53/Add.1).

The Assembly would also elect one remaining member of the International Court of Justice to replace one whose term is set to expire on 5 February 2015.  For background, please see Press Releases GA/11579 and GA/11580.

Introduction of Report

SAM KUTESA (Uganda), President of the General Assembly, introduced the session, saying the Human Rights Council has been active in protecting human rights since its establishment in 2006.  By responding to human rights violations, the Council was instrumental in encouraging respect for human rights and freedom for “everybody, everywhere”.  The Council had assisted States to fulfil their obligations with commissions of inquiry, special procedures and panel discussions, and had shed a spotlight on widespread and systemic human rights violations.

He underscored the importance of the universal periodic review (UPR) which was now in its second cycle, and had become a cornerstone of the Organization’s human rights system.  He encouraged States to continue to cooperate with that important mechanism.  The Council had been prompt in addressing country-specific rights, as well as civil, political, economic, social and cultural and development rights.  It had given voice to the most vulnerable, including women and children, persons with disabilities, internally displaced persons and victims of sexual violence.  Every human being was entitled to a life of dignity and the full enjoyment of human rights.  The support of the General Assembly was essential to ensure that the Human Rights Council fulfilled its mandate.

BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA (Gabon), President of the Human Rights Council, introduced the report, stating that the Council, which had replaced the Commission on Human Rights eight years ago, was well entrusted with the mandate to promote universal respect for human rights and universal freedoms, without distinctions, in a just and fair manner.  The Council had acquired credibility and authority through the universal periodic review system, and, unlike the Commission, had guaranteed non-politicization.

The eighth cycle of the Presidency of the Council had taken place in a difficult international context that involved many non-State actors, he said.  Three ordinary sessions had been held, and more than 252 reports had been examined.  The Council had also organized 22 panels on various crises and on subjects as diverse as the promotion of preventive approaches, the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of women, the use of drones in anti-terrorist military operations, the right to privacy, and on combating sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Three extraordinary sessions for urgent responses to certain situations had been held, he said.  Upon the request of Ethiopia, the Council had met to consider violations of human rights in the Central African Republic, and following the session, an independent expert had been appointed to support stabilization efforts in that country.  The Council had also met on the situation of the Palestinian territories and Gaza, and held a special session on human rights in Iraq regarding abuses by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS).

Turning to the universal periodic review, the reports of 57 countries had been considered this year.  The participation of reviewed countries was “100 per cent”, he said, adding that the UPR system was an essential pillar of the promotion and protection of human rights.  Regarding country situations, the Council had carefully followed the situation of human rights in Eritrea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Belarus, Myanmar, Iran and Syria.  The situation in Iraq and Sri Lanka had also been taken up.

The number of new mandates and thematic items requested by Member States had tripled over the past years, he said, noting that the Council was a “victim of its own success”.  Because the number of decisions and interactive dialogues was constantly increasing, and the workload was becoming a concern, the Bureau was being forced to make arrangements to accommodate the workload.  Human rights should have a place on the post-2015 development agenda.

He went on to say that economic, cultural and social rights, including the right to development, should be considered along the same lines as political rights.  The Council seemed increasingly threatened by the politicization of its debates, and there was a need to shore up its credibility and authority, while remaining mindful of why the Commission had ceased to exist.  Strong human rights institutions were needed to protect human rights across the globe.

Statements

THOMAS MAYR-HARTING, Head of the Delegation of the European Union, attached great importance to the Human Rights Council’s credibility and effectiveness, emphasizing how it had strengthened the Organization’s ability to ensure that all persons enjoyed their human rights.  The Council had maintained its leadership in addressing human rights situations, including its ongoing response to the situation in Syria, where it was the only international investigative mechanism on violations and abuses present in that country.  He also noted the Council’s demonstrated commitment to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to the Governments of several countries.

He went on to say that the Union had extended a standing invitation to the work of special procedures and he called on all States to do likewise.  The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief was welcomed as well, adding that the Union also remained strongly committed to the universal periodic review.  He highlighted important developments, among them the necessary attention to the safety of journalists, the human rights enjoyed by women and girls, the issue of the death penalty, the rights of the child, and the protection of civil society space such as the rights of human rights defenders.  He also reiterated the European Union’s strongest condemnation of the acts of reprisals and intimidation of civil society representatives.

YOUSEF HAMAD AL-IBRAHIM (Kuwait) said that although the report referred to many important issues, the actual implementation of human rights was the responsibility of every State and was directly linked to the realization of development.  In his country, human rights, including the freedom of expression and the right to life, were the pillars of its society.  Since the first report, a committee to coordinate national efforts on human rights had been established, resulting in a draft bill for the Office of Human Rights.  Kuwait would present its second report on human rights in January 2015.  Also established were national commissions and bodies, including the Commission of Human Rights, and national authorities to protect those rights.  As well, his Government had hosted the second donor conference for Syria for human rights.  Voicing support for the draft resolution on human rights in Syria, he also strongly condemned the continued oppressive practices of Israel which violated the rights of the unarmed Palestinian people.

OLIVIER MARC ZEHNDER (Switzerland) said the participation of civil society was especially important for the proper functioning of the Council.  In that context, the growing instances of intimidation and reprisals against members of civil society were of great concern.  He called on all Member States to act together to protect those essential partners of the United Nations system.  While welcoming efforts made to improve the Council’s working methods, he also noted, with regret, that, on two occasions, the nomination of special procedures mandate holders had to be postponed.  Despite the fact that human rights was one of the three pillars of the United Nations, it received only three per cent of the regular budget.  He reiterated his country’s commitment to ending chronic underfunding of human rights activities.

STEFAN BARRIGA (Liechtenstein) noted that his country had fully supported Human Rights Council resolution 24/24 on ending reprisals against individuals or groups cooperating with the United Nations.  However, it was unfortunate that the resolution had not yet been implemented due to action in the Third Committee, which was contrary to the institutional relationship between the General Assembly and the Council.  In addition, noting that the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic had been unable to galvanize political action to end the atrocities it had documented due to a double veto in the Security Council, he said the Commission should focus on gathering and preserving information in such a way that it could be used in court at a later stage.  All viable options to ensure accountability for crimes in Syria must be explored.   He also expressed support for establishing a special procedure regarding the right to privacy in the digital age.  Noting the under-resourcing of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), he said: “Sufficient funding of the human rights pillar of the UN is not only crucial for the Human Rights Council, it is essential for the whole of the United Nations.”

BASHAR JA’AFARI (Syria) said his country was determined to continue cooperating with the Human Rights Council without politicization and imbalances.  He took note of the report with great interest, in particular, regarding the violence in Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  There had been a failure to implement resolutions on that occupation, enabling the Israelis to enjoy impunity for their crimes.  The Syrian Government had offered a range of recommendations to the United Nations, but the Council had not sent any positive signals with regard to their efforts to cooperate.

His Government was facing a difficult situation, he said, and the Human Rights Council resolutions were trying to force it to abandon its sovereign rights.  It was a campaign of colonialism and ethnic cleansing.  The Council had not given other States a chance to understand what was happening in Syria.  The international community was closing its eyes to the gruesome scenes in his country, and the acts by ISIL and Al-Qaida.  There were inflows of terrorists towards Syria, and they were spreading to and threatening other States in the region.  Financing was coming from other countries such as Qatar.  The presence of terrorist groups was recognized, but the Council lacked credibility and objectivity.  Instead, it supported a group of wealthy countries.

JIDDOU JIDDOU (Mauritania), speaking for the African Group, reaffirmed the Human Rights Council’s mandate.  It was on that basis that the Group had been consistently supportive of the work of the Council.  It was incumbent upon the Council to firmly ground its work on universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues.  In that regard, he encouraged the President to ensure that more African countries benefited from the new Voluntary Technical Assistance Trust Fund.  The cooperative nature and principle of dialogue of the universal periodic review must be preserved, and the mechanisms and special procedures must be rationalized.

Funding shortages would affect the implementation of the decisions and resolutions of the Council, he said, urging that activities mandated by the body be funded from the regular budget.  The important role of the family must be included in the achievement of sustainable development goals.  He voiced serious concern that non-internationally agreed notions, such as sexual orientation and gender identity, were given attention, to the detriment of issues of paramount importance, such as the right to development and the racism agenda.  Member States must step up their efforts towards the total elimination of all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

AMINA SMAILA (Nigeria), expressing pleasure at the substantial effort the Council had put into achieving its mandate, urged the body to continue to be guided by resolution 60/251 and the Vienna Declaration.  The Council was a unique tool for the protection and promotion of all human rights.  A focus on economic, social and cultural rights might assist States to attain the Millennium Development Goals.  The universal periodic review had proven to be quite successful amid a substantial increase in the number of States ratifying core human rights instruments.  The considerable number of resolutions adopted during the year reflected the wide array of issues with which the Council had to deal.  However, they came with programme budget implications, which underlined the General Assembly’s responsibility to significantly improve funding.  The Council should also remain within the boundaries of agreed human rights issues.

HUSSEIN HANIFF (Malaysia) said that the Human Rights Council had proven its ability and relevance by addressing complex human rights issues.  Events in the Middle East and Africa highlighted the magnitude of work it was facing.  He welcomed deliberation on the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories and urged the Council to continue to press on the issue.  The universal periodic review was a primary human rights mechanism; his Government had accepted 150 out of 232 recommendations made on various human rights issues, and he reaffirmed his country’s efforts to implement them.  Reiterating the importance of the right to development, he urged the international community to place particular attention to it in the post-2015 development agenda.  He noted that the increasing work of the Council had driven a growth of activities mandated to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reiterated his call for the development of options that would allow Member States to gradually increase resources available for the human rights pillar.  The intricate responsibility to promote human rights issues necessitated deeper cooperation among stakeholders.

ANATOLY VIKTOROV (Russian Federation) noted that the work of the Council had been bent towards ostracizing States for political reasons.  The mutually respectful nature of dialogue had to be reinstated, as well as cooperation among States, based on recognizing their sovereignty.  Ongoing attempts to impose monitoring procedures upon States were unfortunate, and their proliferation was a burden on the United Nations budget.  The only objective mechanism for monitoring human rights was the universal periodic review, which was demonstrated by the goodwill of States with respect to that procedure.  A number of States had attempted to bring topics to the Council’s work that had no direct connection to human rights, as demonstrated by attempts to include issues pertaining to the principle of the responsibility to protect.  The system of special procedures continued to be broadened, and that was costly as there was duplication of functions whose added value wasn’t very clear.  Drafters of Human Rights Council resolutions should avoid instructing Special Rapporteurs to present reports to the General Assembly since the Assembly should decide for itself.  His Government continued to support the work of the Council, and if there was a return to the situation that had surrounded the Commission, that would discredit the United Nations.

ASOKE KUMAR MUKERJI (India) urged members of the Human Rights Council to avoid repeating the shortcomings of its predecessor by ensuring that its objectives and nature were in sync with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.  The universal periodic review had remarkable success in encouraging States to recognize and resolve gaps in human rights protection, and had been accepted and valued as the most positive and constructive process.  The strength of the Council lay in its adherence to the principles of universality, transparency, impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity and constructive international dialogue.  Given the adverse effects of the global economic and financial crisis on human rights, the Council must give equal emphasis to economic, social and cultural rights.  As special procedures were an important mechanism for a genuine dialogue on strengthening the capacity of Member States, mandate-holders needed to remain independent and impartial.  Advocacy and consensus building, rather than “naming and shaming”, would avoid confrontation and lead to long-term sustainable results.

YOUSEF SULTAN LARAM (Qatar) said human rights was a strategic option in his country’s national comprehensive report with a view to building a safe and responsive society.  His country had actively participated during its membership in the Council, and, as Qatar approached its third term, he reinforced its commitment to the Council’s efforts.  In addition, the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review was an important chance for Qatar to participate, noting that it was open to the special mandates.  His Government had implemented many of the recommendations from the first report, including the amendment of its penal code and the tracking of victims.  As well, much effort had been made to promote human rights and basic freedoms for vulnerable persons, such as those with disabilities, and had provided special care for the elderly.

He voiced concern about human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the Human Rights Council’s relevant resolution on the principle of the illegality of the seizure of land by force, and the attempt to disperse land by the building of settlements there.  The Council had indicated that all such practices should end.  He also called attention to the Council’s response to the situation in Syria.  Condemning the Syrian regime for not cooperating with them, he reaffirmed the importance of the full accountability of Syria regarding the violation of rights of the Syrian people.

YUSRA KHAN (Indonesia) said that, while the trend towards increased numbers of special procedures with thematic and country mandates was seen by some to be necessary, the Council needed to avoid duplication and politicization, and to prioritize the equitable representation of each regional group in establishing special procedures.  In addressing specific human rights situations, the Council had to engage with the countries concerned in the spirit of genuine partnership and constructive dialogue.  The Council needed to be respectful of and sensitive to different values, norms, and traditions, and to exercise restraint from promoting certain values, behaviours and practices that did not enjoy international consensus and acceptance.

SHAMEEM AHSAN (Bangladesh) said that with universality and non–selectivity as its strength, the universal periodic review ensured countries faced scrutiny regardless of their region, size, influence or level of development.  The Council was still struggling to address some long-standing areas of gross violation of human rights, and he voiced concern at the denial of the rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.  Regarding climate change, the international community had a moral obligation to support populations suffering from it.  During the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, States had agreed to promote effectively the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants.  However, efforts to realize those commitments had yet to be seen.  Regarding the continued manifestation of crimes related to intolerance, he said they should be forcefully combated as prescribed in the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action.  Full enjoyment of human rights required concerted national and international efforts to eliminate economic deprivation, hunger and disease. Technical cooperation was also crucial in that regard, and had to be supported by simultaneous actions, such as increased concessional assistance to developing countries, including eliminating trade barriers, and resolving debt crisis.

GIRMA ASMEROM TESFAY (Eritrea) said the universal periodic review remained a valid mechanism in enhancing dialogue between Member States.  Since the disbanding of the Commission and the formation of the Council, history was repeating itself, as the Council was, again, becoming a forum for some countries to advance their interests and geopolitical agendas.  He expressed deep concern regarding the behaviour of some States in the implementation of Council rules, and he said he hoped the President would ask the Council to verify the credibility of the allegations.  The proliferation of country mandates ought to be reviewed to save expenditures and to rationalize the Council’s work.  Therefore, before asking for additional funding, the Council must articulate, justify and rationalize expenditures.  The Council must follow a clear procedure that would safeguard it from certain politically motivated resolutions under the pretext of human rights violations.  It must also base its decisions on concrete information and evidence.

IRENE SUSAN BARREIRO NATIVIDAD (Philippines) underlined the primacy of the universal periodic review as the foremost mechanism for reviewing the human rights records of Member States.  Recognizing the vital role of the special procedures, she expressed that their mandates must be in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251.  To achieve effective performance of the special procedures, stakeholders and States must trust each other.  The growing number of special procedures mandates, together with the multitude of resolutions adopted in 2014, illustrated the increasing complexity of human rights issues.  Those were interdependent and referred to as a “complex web of violations of economic, social, cultural and civil and political rights”.  She welcomed the Council’s discussion on the promotion of human rights including development of a repertoire of best practices in post-disaster situation, which her country benefitted from after Typhoon Haiyan.

OSAMA ABDELKHALEK MAHMOUD (Egypt), associating himself with the African Group, said that the adoption of the General Assembly’s resolution on the review of the Council, while consolidating important practices and principles, undermined the main objective of the Council.  The annual report reaffirmed the important role played by the Council in building national capacities, monitoring the situation of human rights, and promoting economic, social, civil and political rights on equal footing.  He also highlighted the Council’s promotion of all human rights through the universal periodic review, the complaint mechanisms, the forum on minorities and mandate holders.  It was important to avoid repeating mistakes from the past, such as attempts to enforce controversial notions through the Council without reaching international consensus.  It was also important to avoid using the Council to legitimize Security Council interference, in a manner that undermined the Human Rights Council’s effectiveness.  The international community was responsible to ensure that the Council carried out its duties within a transparent and cooperative framework, avoiding turning it into a political tool.

ADRIANA MURILLO (Costa Rica) welcomed the strengthening of the Council’s work, adding that her Government’s participation was based on the General Assembly’s vision, set out in 2006, of an entity that was responsible for promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, without any distinction, in a fair and objective manner.  The Council should be a forum that promoted dialogue on thematic issues on human rights and maintained a system of special procedures, as well as offered specialized advice.  She said she was very pleased to see progress on the universal periodic review, which enriched dialogue and helped share good practices, as well as improve the situation of human rights in Member States.  Her Government viewed that presenting their second report was a way to assess progress made by the nation.  A number of national initiatives were being promoted, as well, including the third phase of a program focusing on journalists and other media workers.

International Court of Justice Election

Meeting independently from, but concurrently with, the Security Council, the General Assembly elected Patrick Lipton Robinson of Jamaica as the fifth and final member to the International Court of Justice (see also Press Release SC/11650).

Mr. Robinson would commence his nine-year term in February 2015, along with four judges, two whose posts had been renewed, Mohamed Benouna (Morocco) and Joan E. Donoghue (United States), and two who had been newly elected, James Richard Crawford (Australia) and Kirill Gevorgian (Russian Federation), in the election of 6 November.

Following the 6 November election, in which all but one of the five seats had been filled, the Council and the Assembly held elections again on 7 November, but failed to agree between the two final candidates, Susana Ruiz Cerutti of Argentina, who was chosen by the Security Council, and Patrick Lipton Robinson of Jamaica, who was chosen by the Assembly.

In a communication to the President of the General Assembly on 11 November, the representative of Argentina had withdrawn Ms. Cerutti from consideration.

Including Mr. Lipton Robinson elected today, the Court’s composition on 6 February 2015 would be as follows (terms expire on 5 February of the year in parentheses): Peter Tomka, Slovakia (2021); Ronny Abraham, France (2018); Mohamed Bennouna, Morocco (2024); Dalveer Bhandari, India (2018); Joan E. Donoghue, United States (2024); Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, Brazil (2018); Giorgio Gaja, Italy (2021); Christopher Greenwood, United Kingdom (2018); James Richard Crawford (Australia) (2024); Hisashi Owada, Japan (2021); Xue Hanqin, China (2021); Julia Sebutinde, Uganda (2021); Kirill Gevorgian, Russian Federation (2024); and Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, Somalia (2018).

Voting Results

 

Number of ballot papers:	189
Number of invalid ballots:	0
Number of valid ballots:	189
Number of abstentions:	4
Number of Members present and voting:	185
Required majority:	87
Number of votes obtained:
Patrick Lipton Robinson (Jamaica)	185

Statements on Human Right Council Report

TALAIBEK KYDYROV (Kyrgyzstan) said that, in the context of globalization and new challenges, his country stood for further strengthening international cooperation and the effectiveness of the United Nations and its agencies in the promotion and protection of human rights.  While the progress of the Council was commendable, it was crucial to strictly enforce the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity.  The Council should pay more attention to capacity-building assistance at the country level, and focus on such areas as the right to development, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.  It was necessary to elaborate comprehensive measures and reflect them in the development strategies and programmes, including for the post-2015 period.  Greater efforts were needed to assist countries in the implementation of the recommendations of the universal periodic review.

RODOLFO REYES RODRÍGUEZ (Cuba) said it was very clear from the initiatives under review in the report that the Council needed to be rescued from political manipulation.  Confrontation had been favoured, as had the promotion of sanctions against sovereign States based on unverified allegations.  Voicing rejection of the imposition of that serious precedent, he stressed that such precedents would threaten all developing countries.  He also said that his country would continue to promote constructive dialogue and defend the special procedures and the mechanism of the Council, while working to prevent States from becoming tools for political manipulation.  Such efforts would ensure that human rights for all would not be a pipe dream.

SALWAN SINJAREE (Iraq), offering appreciation for the work that went into the report, said that, in regards to the terrorist attacks of 10 June, the control by ISIL “gangs” over parts of Iraq, and the accompanied violations, including killings and the captivity of women, his Government had sought to expose those crimes before the international community and in front of human rights’ forums.  A resolution was passed in the Council to protect and provide assistance to civilians and to send a special team to Iraq to investigate such violations by ISIL.  He reiterated his country’s determination to cooperate with the team, and expressed his gratitude with the Member States that had supported the resolution, as well as those who had supported Iraq in its fight against terrorism.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said the international community had a duty to preserve the Council from politicization of its work.  His Government had launched an initiative for a voluntary fund for the participation of least developed States and small island developing States in the work of the Council.  Noting that the fund had been launched by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, he also said that his Government would host a training seminar, which would benefit small island developing States.  The Council continued to face numerous obstacles with regard to the implementation of its mandate.  Reference to the work of the Council in mass media was not common, and that made it difficult to claim that the body had fulfilled its potential.  The Council should adopt a communications strategy to promote its work in the field of human rights.  Considerable efforts had to be made to lighten its workload through genuine rationalization of its working methods.  Members also had to oppose any attempts to move it away from the mandate set by General Assembly.

MILORAD ŠĆEPANOVIĆ (Montenegro) said that the Human Rights Council’s contributions were even more important and relevant in situations where the Security Council was unable to provide a timely response to emergencies.  His Government would persist in advocating for full accountability to be ensured for all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.  The involvement and cooperation of all stakeholders, including the Council, its special procedures, non-governmental organizations and other State- and non-State actors, would be of utmost importance in making the universal periodic review an efficient instrument for a transparent and objective assessment of the human rights situation of each Member State.

ELSA DIAZ (Mexico), noting that her country had joined the Council last January, acknowledged the need for greater cooperation and dialogue among regions.  To strengthen the Council and to improve its dialogue with other bodies of the Organization, it was crucial to capitalize on innovative tools.  That would include promoting exchanges among countries, especially through sessions of the universal periodic review.  Another important tool was the technical cooperation and assistance offered by the High Commissioner.  More efficient use of the mechanisms, especially the special procedures, must be sought.  It was important for States to recognise the legitimacy of the Council’s decisions at all times.

MOHAMED IBRAHIM MOHAMED ELBAHI (Sudan), associating himself with the African Group, said that his Government had ratified the international covenants on human rights.  He called upon the United Nations and other donors to fulfil their obligations concerning technical assistance and capacity-building, noting that his country had made efforts to cooperate with the new human rights expert that had been appointed to Sudan.  On a national platform, policies and strategies had been adopted to protect human rights, and a national commission on human rights had been established.  Among other initiatives was a justice system for juveniles, a special tribunal for Darfur and laws for child and family protections.  He called for stopping the attempts by some to import “novel sexual concepts” in a way that completely overlooked the specific religious norms and cultural traditions of societies.  There were many new issues that required tripartite cooperation that would include the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner, stakeholders, and States, rather than having some States appointing themselves as judges and human rights evaluators.

ERLING HOEM (Norway) said the Council continued to make important decisions through cross-regional agreements and alliances and, on several potentially contentious issues, had achieved consensus.  Unfortunately, gains in the normative sphere had not been translated in an improved situation for civil society and human rights defenders.  Continuing threats, attacks and acts of intimidation against people who cooperated or sought to cooperate with the United Nations ultimately undermined the credibility of the Organization and its ability to carry out its work.  That shameful practice needed a firmer response.  Lauding the recent adoption of a resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity, he noted that the universal periodic review had maintained a 100 per cent participation rate from States.  While recognizing several successes, he also voiced concern that the Council’s agenda was filling up to the extent that it could damage the quality of its work.

PALITHA T. B. KOHONA (Sri Lanka), voicing concern that the Human Rights Council was headed in the same direction as the former Commission on Human Rights, said the way in which the Council had begun to target specific countries selectively did not bode well for its future.  It was unfortunate that his country had become the subject of a resolution, despite its significant efforts in addressing issues arising from conflict and promoting reconciliation and reconstruction.  By calling for an investigation on his country, the Council had not given adequate credit to its process of national reconciliation, and had ignored the principle of working with the country concerned in the first instance.  For those reasons, his Government had rejected Human Rights Council Resolution 25/1.  Its rejection of the Council’s investigation did not amount to concealing information.  As a proud and independent country with a strong legal tradition, it was capable of conducting the necessary investigations.  Recalling the Council’s President’s appeal to protect that body’s credibility, he underscored that in order to be effective, it must move away from its “politicized agenda glazed with double standards”.

MIGUEL CAMILO RUIZ (Colombia) said that the Human Rights Council’s institutional mechanisms, especially the universal periodic review, had proven crucial due to their effect as catalysts and their effect on the ground.  Reaffirming his country’s commitment to cooperate with that forum, he added that he did not agree with criticisms of bias.  The Council had been able to find areas of agreement where the international community could work collectively.  The international community’s common commitment to universalizing human rights and the fight against violence were principles all could share.  Supporting the report and recognizing the impact of having an open forum when it came to human rights, he acknowledged the importance of dialogue to implement resolutions adopted by the Human Rights Council.

AHMED SAREER (Maldives) said that the special sessions dedicated to human rights in the Central African Republic, the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Iraq had become an important part of the hearings of the Council.  He also stated that he was proud of what the Council had achieved in a year marred by violence, aggression, natural disasters and intensified climate change.  The protection of human rights was the single most important issue for international cooperation and cohesion.  There was a need for addressing the human rights within the dimension of climate change.  Maldives was currently undergoing social and economic transformation, but it faced grave uncertainties because of climate change.  His Government had established, on a national platform, hard law and policy for the poor, disabled persons, and the elderly, among other human rights initiatives.  All Maldivians enjoyed universal healthcare.  His Government had also brought the human rights agenda of small island developing States to the fore of the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

Right of Reply

In exercise of the right of reply, a representative of Israel said, in response to the Syrian delegation’s launch of baseless accusations against Israel, that the Syrian Government seemed to think it could distract attention from the brutal treatment of its people by making an array of false accusations against Israel.  “That did not bring us any closer to resolving the problems of our region”, he said, adding that such comments dragged stakeholders further away from peace.  Israel was and would always be what was right about the Middle East.

In exercise of the right of reply, a representative of Syria said it was quite ironic to receive a lesson from Israel, when it had only been just a few weeks since the savage aggression in Gaza.  Everyone was aware of the racism and barbarities shown by the Israelis against the Arab inhabitants, such as the violence against a woman in front of the holy mosque or the lynching of a Palestinian cab driver.  Those who claimed that they respected human rights must apply them in an exemplary way, she added.  Qatar and Israel were backing terrorist groups in the occupied Syrian Golan; those terrorist groups captured people and then released them in exchange for payments.  It was a ridiculous masquerade.  She added, “Enough with the hypocrisy and the lies”, and called for a stop to the “instrumentalization” of the suffering of the Palestinian people.

In exercise of the right of reply, a representative of Qatar responded to comments made by the Syrian delegation, stressing that those statements were no different from what he usually heard.  The attempt to refer to Qatar as terrorists was the same way Syria had responded to any attempt to condemn the violation of civil rights and international law committed by the regime and the groups affiliated with it.  The Qatar Government would stand up against the Syrian Government.  Furthermore, his country had taken a great many measures to implement the human rights resolution.  “Children in hospitals, children in schools, [...] and people living in their homes” had all been bombarded by a Government whose mission should have been to protect them.  The Syrian regime was not fighting against terrorism.  Those crimes committed against civilians were no different than the crimes carried out by terrorist groups in Syria.

The representative of Syria, responding to the Qatar delegate, said that her country did not accept those comments, noting that his country was known to finance terrorist groups, not only in Syria but in the region.  Referring to a CNN report highlighting the role of the Qatari regime, she said that those who gave lessons of human rights should also act on them.  She pointed out to the systematic violation of human rights against migrant labours and workers in Qatar, noting that two international organizations had concluded in their reports that those workers were subject to abuses and rapes.  Those crimes had nothing to do with Syria.