COMMISSION ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON IMPROVING FUNCTIONING OF OFFICE OF HIGH COMMISSIONER, OTHER ISSUES

Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON 8 April 2004



Debate Continues on Rights of Specific Groups and Individuals

The Commission on Human Rights approved resolutions this afternoon intended to improve the functioning of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to enhance the right to development

In a resolution adopted by a roll-call vote of 51 in favour and none opposed, with 2 abstentions, the Commission, among other things, welcomed the appointment of a new High Commissioner for Human Rights and requested the Secretary-General, when appointing the High Commissioner in the future, to give due consideration to geographical rotation; encouraged the Office to ensure transparency in its activities and operations; and reaffirmed that the tasks of the High Commissioner included promoting and protecting the realization of the right to development and that the Office should devote adequate resources and staff to the follow-up of implementation of that right.

The Commission approved by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and 1 opposed, with no abstentions, a resolution reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to establish their sovereign and independent Palestinian State, and looked forward to the early fulfilment of this right.

A Representative of Israel said the measure pre-empted the outcome of permanent status negotiations and would only undermine attempts to reach a successful conclusion to those negotiations.

A Representative of Palestine said that what kept Palestinians from exerting their right to self-determination was the Israeli occupation, and the nature and volume of the vote on the resolution would constitute the best response to Israel, the occupier of Palestinian land.

In a resolution on the question of the Western Sahara, adopted by consensus, the Commission expressed its support for the peace plan for self-determination of the people of the Western Sahara as an optimum political solution on the basis of agreement between the two parties; strongly supported the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy in order to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution to the dispute over the Western Sahara; and called upon all the parties and States of the region to cooperate fully with the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy.

In a resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour and 14 opposed, with 3 abstentions, the Commission decided to renew for a period of three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the topic; and, among other things, urged all States to take the necessary steps and to exercise the utmost vigilance against the menace posed by the activities of mercenaries, and to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and other territories under their control were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries for the planning of activities designed to impede the right to self-determination, to overthrow the Government of any State, or dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the right to self-determination of peoples.

Commission members from the European Union and the United States voted against the measure, saying the topic did not fall within the authority of the Commission and was better discussed in other United Nations fora.

The Commission also carried on this afternoon with the general debate under its agenda item on specific groups and individuals, which focuses on such matters as the rights of migrant workers, the rights of minorities, situations of mass exodus and internal displacement, and problems involving other vulnerable groups and individuals.

National delegations addressing these topics said among other things that more cooperation was needed to end trafficking in persons; that further international support should be forthcoming for a proposed international convention on the rights of disabled persons; and that greater efforts were required to protect persons from enforced disappearances and to enable the families to find out the fates of missing persons.

A Representative of El Salvador said migrants frequently were subjected to exploitation and to serious violations of their human rights -- many worked in abusive, inhumane and degrading conditions, particularly those employed as domestic helpers, and it was necessary to adopt policies and remedies at the national and international levels to resolve their problems

And a Representative of Finland said the call to establish a special procedure to monitor the implementation of minority rights and to contribute to the prevention of minority related conflicts merited careful, positive consideration by the international community.

Addressing the afternoon meeting were Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Romania, Iraq, New Zealand, Ecuador, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, El Salvador, Finland, Senegal, the World Health Organization, the International Labour Office, Ghana, the Holy See, the International Organization for Migration, Colombia, Singapore, Switzerland, Serbia and Montenegro, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, and Cyprus.

Several non-governmental organizations also spoke. They were the Friends World Committee for Consultation (joint statement with International Catholic Migration Commission, Jesuit Refugee Service, and Amnesty International); Baha’i International Community (joint statement on behalf of Minority Rights Group International and the Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism); 3HO Foundation (joint statement*); International Human Rights Association of American Minorities (joint statement with the Rural Development Foundation, International Educational Development and International Young Catholic Students); Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (joint statement with World Evangelical Alliance); Franciscans International; and Interfaith International.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 13 April, and is expected over the course of the morning to begin discussion of its agenda item on the report of its principal subsidiary body, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Action on Resolution on the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Follow-Up to the World Conference on Human Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.14) on the strengthening the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 51 in favour and none opposed, with 2 abstentions (Australia and the United States), and as orally amended, the Commission welcomed the appointment of a new High Commissioner for Human Rights by the Secretary-General and requested the Secretary-General, when appointing the High Commissioner in the future, to give due consideration to geographical rotation when appointing the High Commissioner as set out in General Assembly resolution 48/141; encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to continue the current practice of making the best use of available human rights expertise relevant to, and, as appropriate, from the regions where activities were undertaken; encouraged the Office to ensure transparency in its activities and operation; called upon donors to take into account the High Commissioner’s call for unearmarked contributions; reaffirmed that the tasks of the High Commissioner included promoting and protecting the realization of the right to development and that the Office should devote adequate resources and staff to its follow-up; called upon the High Commissioner to continue to emphasize the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights; emphasized the need for an increase in the allocation of resources from within the United Nations regular budget for advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights; took note of the practice of publishing an annual report which provided Member States with information on the activities of the Office, and called upon the High Commissioner to include detailed information on the status and use of all voluntary, in particular earmarked, contributions to the budget of the Office in her next annual appeal and annual report.

In favour (51): Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (0):

Abstentions (2): Australia and United States.

Three proposed amendments to the resolution offered by the United States were rejected – an amendment to delete operative paragraph 8 was defeated by a vote of 1 in favour (United States) and 49 opposed, with 3 abstentions (Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea); a revision of operative paragraph 9 was rejected by a vote of 1 in favour (United States) and 32 opposed, with 17 abstentions; and revision of operative paragraph 10 was rejected by a vote of 3 in favour (Australia, Honduras, United States) and 33 opposed, with 17 abstentions.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said India would have liked to welcome the United Kingdom as the latest entry to the Like-Minded Group, but deprived of that pleasure, the vote just taken still had demonstrated the resounding reaffirmation of geographic rotation in the appointment of senior management. It had been necessary in light of the discussion that preceded it. He wished to congratulate the members of the European Union on their votes, which showed that need had been acknowledged.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), in an explanation after the vote on behalf of the European Union, said she wished the text had been adopted by consensus. The European Union had supported the resolution. Also, it strongly supported the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and wished the newly appointed High Commissioner for Human Rights success in her endeavours.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, said that in the light of the comments made by Ireland, the Like-Minded Group could not accept her statement regarding the lack of time available for this resolution, as there had been enough time for consideration.

Action on Resolutions on the Right to Self-Determination

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.7) on the situation in occupied Palestine, adopted by a vote of 52 in favour, and 1 opposed (United States), with no abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to establish their sovereign and independent Palestinian State, and looked forward to the early fulfilment of this right; requested the Secretary-General to transmit the present resolution to the Government of Israel and to all other Governments; and decided to consider the situation in occupied Palestine at the sixty-first session of the Commission under its agenda item on the right of peoples to self-determination.

In favour (52): Argentina, Armenia, Australia , Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States.

Abstention (0):


YAAKOV LEVY (Israel) said the issue of self-determination for the Palestinians should be carefully considered, as this was mainly a political issue under discussion between Israel and Palestine, and was part of a much broader context to be determined in the bilateral track of negotiations between the parties when they resumed. Not long ago, outstanding permanent status issues had been under discussion. Israel supported the right to self-determination, including in the Middle East, and the history of Israel was one of the defence of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. The Palestinian leadership had yet to realize that this was a story of two peoples, not just one, and their right to self-determination and to live together in peace and security. Israel had recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements, historically. Israel expected that responsible Arab leaders would address their people not only regarding their rights but also regarding the need to make concessions and compromises with the other side in future negotiations and to recognize the other’s rights.

The record showed it was the choice of the Palestinian Authority not to consummate negotiations when they were near fruition a few years ago. Israel’s position remained that self-determination should be achieved through direct, peaceful negotiations between the two sides directly involved. Israel would not give in to violence and would not change its political positions as a result of violence thrust upon it. This draft resolution pre-empted the outcome of permanent status negotiations and would only undermine attempts to reach a successful conclusion to those negotiations. Israel appealed to Commission members not to prejudge the issue, and to leave it to the parties involved to resolve. That would add to the parties’ incentive to negotiate.

NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said the Commission had adopted several resolutions on this topic over the preceding years, each of which had contained similar language calling upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and to allow the Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination. That right had been asserted in all relevant international legal instruments. The rights of the Palestinians did not differ from the rights of the rest of the world’s people. The thing that kept the Palestinians from exerting their right to self-determination was the Israeli occupation. As all were aware, a people under domination could not exercise fully their rights. The nature and volume of the vote on the resolution would actually constitute the best response to Israel, the occupier of Palestinian land.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said the attention and efforts of all who wanted real progress in the Middle East should be on practical, pragmatic and concerted steps, not on fanciful rhetorical indulgences. Serious people were engaged in serious work to help resolve the Middle East conflict. The actions of the Commission appeared repeatedly and increasingly divorced from reality and would not contribute to the work on the ground that was necessary to achieve peace. This topic was within the competence of the Security Council, which, in fact, frequently deliberated on various aspects of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza. The responsibilities of the Commission were important and consequential. Speaking out for human rights victims voiceless in their own lands and promoting the inalienable human rights of all individuals was a sacred trust. The Commission dishonoured those victims and broke faith with its own values by allowing its work to be hijacked for political purposes. It was inappropriate for the Commission to pass judgment on political matters that were outside its jurisdiction.

This resolution would not advance the peace process. It would not help the people on the ground. It would not support the real work going on to achieve an acceptable resolution to the conflict. In fact, it was counterproductive and harmful. Among other things, it lacked balance; it failed to help; and the Commission was passing judgement on political matters. Such action would never substitute for negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians to produce a final settlement. The United States would vote against this draft resolution.

LARS PIRA PÉREZ (Guatemala) said Guatemala recognized the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and their right to establishment of a Palestinian State, and would therefore vote in favour of the draft resolution. However, the need not to question the right of Israel to exist was also essential. The recognition of the two peoples and of their concurrent rights to self-determination was required for the two to live together in harmony. Both parties should resume negotiations based on the Road Map.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.8) on the question of the Western Sahara, adopted by consensus, the Commission underlined Security Council resolution 1495 (2003) in which the Council expressed its support of the peace plan for self-determination of the people of the Western Sahara as an optimum political solution on the basis of agreement between the two parties; strongly supported the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy in order to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution to the dispute over the Western Sahara; commended the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy for their outstanding efforts and the two parties for the spirit of cooperation they had shown; called upon all the parties and the States of the region to cooperate fully with the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy; called upon the parties to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross to solve the problem of the fate of people unaccounted for, and called upon the parties to abide by their obligation under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.15) on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour, 14 against, with 3 abstentions (Croatia, the Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia), the Commission decided to renew for a period of three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the topic; urged all States to take the necessary steps and to exercise the utmost vigilance against the menace posed by the activities of mercenaries, and to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and other territories under their control were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries for the planning of activities designed to impede the right to self-determination, to overthrow the Government of any State, or dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the right to self-determination of peoples; requested all States to impose a specific ban on private companies’ offering military consultancies and security services to intervene in armed conflicts or actions to destabilize regimes; called upon all States that had not yet done so to sign or ratify the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries; invited States to investigate the possibility of mercenary involvement whenever and wherever criminal acts of a terrorist nature occurred; condemned recent mercenary activities in Africa; commended the Governments of Africa on their collaboration in thwarting these illegal actions; called upon the international community to cooperate with and assist in the judicial prosecution of those accused of mercenary activities; requested the new Special Rapporteur to circulate to and consult with States on the new proposal for a legal definition of a mercenary; requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene a third meeting of experts on traditional and new forms of mercenary activities; requested the Special Rapporteur, among other things, to pay particular attention to the impact of the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services on the international market on the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination; and urged all States to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur.


In favour (36): Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

Against (14): Australia, Austria, France, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States,

Abstentions (3): Croatia, Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia.


MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of vote, said the European Union shared many of concerns voiced here about the dangers posed by mercenaries and the impact of their activities on the duration and quality of armed conflict. However, the European Union did not feel that the Commission was the correct forum in which to deal with this issue. Doubting that it should be dealt with as a human rights issue, or as an issue affecting the right to self-determination, the Union felt the issue of mercenaries would more appropriately be addressed in the General Assembly’s Sixth Committee (Legal). The Union also reiterated its strong doubts about the appropriateness of asking the High Commissioner to devote attention and resources to the subject. The Union’s members would continue to cooperate with interested states on this issue within the appropriate fora. However European Union members on the Commission would vote against the draft resolution.

Statements on Specific Groups and Individuals

JENNIFER ROWE, of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that with regard to the issue of persons missing as a result of armed conflict or internal violence and the problems faced by their families, concrete action should be taken first of all by Governments but also by all other concerned actors, including organized armed groups and inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, which should foster action after a number of concrete operational steps were taken, including a number of legal measures.

Domestic laws should ensure the implementation of existing international laws on the matter and should be further developed, where necessary, to better prevent persons from going missing and to better support the families of missing persons. Implementation measures should address such topics as personal identification means, exchange of family news, information on arrest and detention procedures, proper handling of the dead and of human remains, the protection of personal data, the assurance of the right of families to know the fates of their missing relatives, and the clear establishment of the legal situation of persons reported missing and the consequences for their family members.

DORU COSTEA (Romania) said the Romanian Government had adopted a National Action Plan for Countering Trafficking in Human Beings that included laws, identified relevant government agencies and set up partnership relations with non-governmental organizations. The plan also defined a framework for international cooperation in this field. The effectiveness of efforts to end trafficking in human beings had increased in Romania. In 2003, Romanian authorities had dismantled 40 criminal networks dealing with trafficking and illegal migration; 778 persons had been investigated by the police and the Prosecutors Office based on the work of the Anti-Trafficking Unit; 125 cases had been sent to the courts; and, so far, 50 final sentences had been handed down, with maximum penalties of up to 10 years.

Romania’s commitment to combating trafficking in human beings at the regional level had been proved, inter alia, by its role as Coordinator of the Task Force for countering trafficking in human beings at the relevant Regional Centre for Combating Trans-Border Crime. Romania supported the development of the capacity for tactical and strategic analysis of the Regional Centre. Romanian projects for reinforcing international cooperation in this field aimed at expanding the national liaison officer’s network in the member states of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization.

MUKDAD H.M. SALMAN (Iraq) said the people of Iraq had suffered under the former regime, prompting millions to leave the country as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. The number of those living outside of Iraq was about 3 million. These people had begun to solve the problems they faced on the humanitarian front through the help of the Red Cross, and many had started to consider returning, although Iraq suffered from high unemployment.

The people of Iraq – including the Kurdish and Assyrian people – had suffered under the former regime, but now they were enjoying greater fulfilment of their rights. The former regime’s wars had also led to internal displacement, but with the help of the Red Cross, the internally displaced were beginning to return. Yet many of the displaced were children who suffered from hunger and illiteracy. An immediate intervention by the United Nations system to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people was needed.

NICOLA HILL (New Zealand) said persons with disabilities were not included in the peoples of "other status" whose rights should be protected under article 2 of both of the International Covenants on human rights. It had been the realization that, regrettably, all too often their rights had not received the protection they deserved that had led New Zealand to give its active support to the drafting of a Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The disabled wanted no special privileges. Their aspirations were simple: they wanted the opportunity to make the sorts of choices about their everyday lives that most people took for granted. In other words, they aspired to ordinary lives, and they did not want those choices taken from them in an arbitrary fashion, however well intentioned that fashion might be. As they said: "Nothing about us, without us".

New Zealand was delighted at the progress made in January by the Working Group preparing a draft Convention on the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.

RAFAEL PAREDES PROAÑO (Ecuador) said violations of the elementary human rights of migrants continued in many parts of the world. Ecuador had expressed satisfaction at the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Migrants and Members of Their Families, to which Ecuador was a State party. Accession to the Convention by States would be a significant step towards protecting the rights of migrants universally. Ecuador welcomed the establishment of the relevant Committee, which already had started its work. The Committee would be an instrument for monitoring respect for migrants’ rights by States parties and their compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

Ecuador reiterated its commitment to continued collaboration with the work of the United Nations in disseminating and promoting the provisions of the Convention. It would also endeavour to implement the articles of the Convention and would support the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in that regard.

OLIVIER COUTAU, of International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said the Federation was based on the need to support the most vulnerable, and unfortunately the number of people rendered vulnerable by disaster, disease, neglect, discrimination and other factors continued to grow. Groups meriting particular concern included people living outside their countries of nationality. Whether these people were termed migrants, guest workers, refugees, asylum seekers, trafficked persons, or something else, host Governments still had the basic obligation of providing for their dignity and well being.

Another group needing further attention was the victims of "forgotten disasters" -- the marginalized and unsupported masses who struggled on after media attention had flitted elsewhere. Donor fatigue could not be allowed to overwhelm the international community's concern for the suffering of people who had already been marginalized by disaster. These and other issues had been closely related to the core of the responsibility accepted by all States and National Societies at the 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in December of last year.

RAMIRO RECINOS TREJO (El Salvador) said that because of El Salvador's position as a country of origin and transit of migrants, the protection and promotion of the rights of migrants had been a subject of high priority for the Government. The Convention on the protection of the rights of migrant workers and the Committee of independent experts studying implementation of the Convention would be among the instruments that would help the protect the human rights of migrant workers at the international level. El Salvador was also endeavouring to strengthen its protection of the rights of migrant workers and would cooperate with the Committee and in the implementation of the provisions of the Convention. El Salvador had welcomed the entry into force on 1 July 2003 of the Convention. Similarly, it expressed its satisfaction on the setting up of the Committee. The Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on migrants should continue to promote the ratification of the Convention by as many States as possible.

As the Special Rapporteur on migrants had indicated, a number of migrants were subjected to exploitation and to serious violations of their human rights. Many of them worked in abusive, inhumane and degrading conditions, particularly those employed as domestic helpers. It was necessary to adopt policies and remedies at the national and international levels to resolve their problems, as recommended by the Rapporteur.

VESA HIMANEN (Finland) said tolerance, equality and non-discrimination were cornerstones of the rule of law. The principle of non-discrimination lay at the heart of human rights and democratic governance. The promotion of the rights of minorities, in turn, was closely linked to protection against discrimination and therefore an essential element of a democratic society. The Finnish Government had participated actively in international efforts aimed at promoting and protecting the rights of minorities. On the regional level, it had focused on the extensive network of legal instruments and inter-governmental mechanisms established by the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. At the United Nations, it had participated actively in the work of the Working Group on Minorities, whose efforts were valued highly.

Finland had, however, the sincere belief that the United Nations could and should do more to protect minorities worldwide. As it was, the United Nations lacked the capacity to efficiently monitor the situation of minorities, and to react quickly to violations of the human rights of persons belonging to minorities, and it was the view of the Government of Finland that the call to establish a special procedure to monitor the implementation of minority rights and, inter alia, to contribute to the prevention of minority related conflicts, merited careful, positive consideration.

PAPA DIOP (Senegal) said increasing migration had led the international community to various reactions, all of which aimed to bring a greater level of protection to the rights and freedoms of migrants. Migrants had the right to life, the right to equality before the law, the right to the freedoms of worship, opinion and association, the right to retain their mother tongues, their cultures and their traditions, the right to education, the right to enjoy safe and salubrious conditions of work, and the right to medical aid.

The human rights of migrants were of utmost priority, in particular those of women and children. Senegal was aware of the need to protect its migrants, and it had adhered to the standards of the relevant Convention. There was a need for greater ratification of the Convention, for a humanist approach to migration policies, for a new concept of management of migration, for better bilateral cooperation between States, and for appropriate policies to manage migratory fluxes.

MARGARET GRISS, of World Health Organization (WHO), said some 450 million people today suffered from mental and brain disorders, but the low priority of mental health on the agendas of some Governments meant that appropriate services and essential medication remained unavailable to them. Even when mental health services existed, poor standards of treatment, care and living conditions were often the norm, while geographic and funding barriers limited access to the few services that were available. Furthermore, violations of the human rights of such persons were widespread in both institutions and communities. They included rejection, unfair denial of employment opportunities, and discrimination in access to services, health insurance and housing. The stigma and discrimination associated with mental disabilities kept many from seeking the treatment they needed.

WHO remained committed to promoting the human rights of people with mental disabilities by supporting countries’ development and implementation of mental health policies, services and legislation consistent with international and regional human rights obligations. WHO’s Mental Health Policy and Service Guidance Package provided Governments with up-to-date evidence-based information. A resource book on how to develop human rights-sensitive mental health legislation would be available later in the year, and training forums would be conducted at the international, regional and country levels.

PATRICK TARAN, of International Labour Office (ILO), said that each year millions of men and women left their homes and crossed national borders seeking greater human security for themselves and their families. However, despite the existence of international standards for protecting migrants, their rights as workers were too often undermined. Some suffered extreme abuse and violence in situations of forced labour and trafficking. The estimation that 86 million of the 175 million persons living outside their countries of origin or citizenship were economically active suggested that nearly all adult migrants and refugees of working age were involved in work. That figure also meant that most international labour standards were applicable to migrant workers and critical for ensuring their protection from discrimination, xenophobia, abuse, exploitation and violence.

Among the policy concerns that the ILO considered fundamental were to make migration a choice by ensuring decent work for all in their home countries; to enhance the contributions of migration and migrants themselves to development; to set up effective policies and practices for regular labour migration; to ensure a standards-based approach by implementing relevant international norms; to enact a plan of action against discrimination and xenophobia; to facilitate integration of regular, long-term migrant workers and their families; and to engage in regional and international dialogue and cooperation on labour migration matters.

GLORIA A AKUFFO (Ghana) said that to demonstrate its determination to provide effective protection for its citizens wherever they resided, the Government of Ghana had initiated action for the early ratification by Parliament of the Convention on Migrant Workers, and urged all other States to do the same. For many countries, including Ghana, migrant workers were an important source of inward flow of financial and other resources for development and for the well being of families. Yet throughout the world, migrant workers faced discrimination and various types of violations of their fundamental freedoms and human rights, and they were often compelled to accept high-risk but low-paid jobs to survive. Immigration regimes also did not appear to promote their welfare and well being, and sometimes even treated them as common criminals.

International migration was, however, a natural consequence of the globalization process, and there could not be free movement of goods and services without corresponding free movements of peoples. Migrant workers could not and should not be seen as burdens or undesirables by host countries. All States should work in tandem with the Special Rapporteur to promote the protection of migrants. States were urged to cooperate for the orderly management of migration and to prevent illegal and secondary migration, including the scourge of human trafficking which was a direct result of excessive restrictions imposed on visas and regular migration flows.

SILVANO M. TOMASI, of the Holy See, said the vast and growing phenomenon of human mobility involved tens of millions of people, and every country of origin, transit and arrival was directly affected by it. These masses on the move were the actors of globalization and development through the contribution of their cultures, their work, and the remittances they sent home. Their contributions were more than that given by rich countries as aid for development. While basically a positive factor of modern societies, people on the move became a source of political and social concern, and of untold suffering to themselves, when their presence in a new environment was the result of forced expulsions or violent conflicts, as in the cases of refugees and internally displaced persons, or of deception and exploitation, as in the case of trafficked and smuggled persons.

Among violations of migrants’ rights, trafficking was the worst. There were, however, other vulnerable migrants who found themselves in irregular situations in their receiving societies. At the root of the migration push was often found extreme poverty and the alluring appeal of possible jobs and a freer and more humane life in countries of destination. A multi-pronged approach was necessary to make human mobility a motor for progress even for its most vulnerable participants.

JILLYANNE REDPATH, of International Organization for Migration (IOM), said all migrants, irrespective of their national origin, their race, creed, or colour, or their legal status, shared with the nationals of their host communities both a common humanity and the right to expect decent and humane treatment.

The IOM believed that one of the key ways in which it could contribute to effective respect for the rights and dignity of migrants was through the promotion of managed migration systems. This approach rested on a number of fundamental assumptions and principles. Ensuring that migrants’ rights were upheld and respected was of primary importance. The IOM would continue its dynamic role in raising awareness of these rights and their realization, and would continue to encourage dialogue and cooperation in order to promote the human dignity and well being of migrants.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said forced displacements were one of the concerns of international human rights instruments and humanitarian law which Colombia was facing, and such displacements should be seen within the context of confrontations between illegal armed groups for the purpose of controlling territories for the cultivation of illicit narcotics. The Government had put in place development programmes for the prevention and protection of displaced persons affected by armed conflict. A number of international organizations were also collaborating with the efforts of the Government. The Word Bank had been providing support to national efforts to accommodate displaced persons socially and economically. The Government was financially supporting projects which would involve displaced persons, and it had put in place a mechanism for the safe return of displaced persons to their places of origin.

Colombia was committed to the idea that the rights of migrants should be respected by the laws of host countries. Colombia condemned acts of trafficking in persons. Colombia believed that the Convention on migrants would be useful for the protection of the human rights of migrants.

ONG SOO CHUAN (Singapore) said the welfare of migrants was important to all States, and the work of the United Nations and the international community in protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants was fully supported by Singapore. Singapore was in fact an immigrant society. However, it made a clear distinction between legal and illegal migrants. An illegal migrant was necessarily subject to limitations of certain rights, as he had violated immigration laws. Such illegal migrants posed a serious threat to the safety and security of any country.

There had been many reported cases of human trafficking by international smuggling syndicates. There was a need for greater cooperation between sending and receiving States to track illegal migration, punish human smugglers and traffickers, raise international awareness of problems relating to illegal migration, and facilitate the orderly return of illegal migrants. In recent years there had been calls on Governments to review and revise their immigration policies with a view to eliminating all discriminatory policies and measures against migrants. Singapore had reservations about such developments, as every country had the sovereign right to tailor its immigration policy to suit its specific conditions and circumstances.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the protection, security and physical integrity of the internally displaced, particularly women and children, must be ensured by States and this responsibility also implied recourse to internationally mandated humanitarian organizations to extend protection and assistance to internally displaced persons. Moreover, guarantees for the safety of humanitarian actors and their access to affected populations must be ensured. Under international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, Government actors and non-state armed groups were called upon to abide by their responsibility to protect civilians from conflicts and to apply the guiding principles related to the internal displacement of persons which had been largely recognized at the national, regional and international levels.

Switzerland called on all humanitarian partner organizations to continue efforts, under the guidance of the Emergency Relief Coordinator, to coordinate better their proactive and targeted actions. The political participation of minorities in State decision-making, much like certain forms of autonomy, contributed to their integration into society and to the prevention and resolution of conflicts. Respect for the rights of minorities was necessary to ensure peace and security in the world. A mechanism should be established to strengthen the activities of the Working Group on minorities, the mandate of which should urge States to respect minority rights and to make concrete their realization. Such a mechanism would complement the mechanism for the prevention of genocide announced yesterday by the Secretary-General.

ALEKSANDAR RADOVANOVIC (Serbia and Montenegro) said that even before the recent acts of ethnically motivated violence by Kosovo Albanian extremists against Serbian and other non-Albanian communities in the province of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro had been providing protection and assistance to some 235,000 internally displaced persons from Kosovo and Methohija. And, according to data of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, only 4,000 of these people had returned to their homes in the past five years, and all those who had returned had had their rights constantly violated. The bottom line was that the conditions conducive to safe return and respect for the rights of the internally displaced had not yet been created in the region.

Last month’s incidents of violence had only exacerbated this problem and created a new influx of displaced persons. It seemed that the creation of a multiethnic society in the region was a very distant goal. The causes of the recent violence pointed to the conclusion that Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija must be given new institutional guarantees, in which regard decentralization would prove an essential step towards stabilizing the situation. The international community – primarily United Nations Mission in Kosovo and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees – should invest much more effort to that end. Additionally, Serbia and Montenegro continued to provide protection and assistance to more than 280,000 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. A sustainable solution must be found. The fate of missing persons also continued to require full attention. Serbia and Montenegro continued to work for the full resolution of the issue of missing persons in the former Yugoslavia.

SEYMUR MARDALIYEV (Azerbaijan) said internal displacement was a problem that fell within the sovereignty of States, and national Governments had to assume responsibility for the protection of the rights of persons within their national jurisdictions. However, there was a firm belief that the international community had to take into account the scales of displacement that countries faced, as well as Governments’ capacities to address this problem, as practice showed that developing countries and countries with economies in transition with limited resources hosted a large number of displaced persons.

Burden-sharing between Governments and the international community in meeting the needs of internally displaced persons was important. The situation in Azerbaijan was an example. Despite the scale of the problem in that country, there had been a trend towards a reduction in the volume of humanitarian aid for displaced persons provided by international organizations due to the ongoing lack of progress in resolving the conflict that had caused the displacement. Meanwhile the humanitarian situation remained difficult. With regard to shifting from relief to a development strategy, as carried out by the United Nations and its specialized bodies in Azerbaijan, in the case of long-standing conflicts a special strategy to this end should be elaborated, and a leading role in this process and subsequently in securing coordination should be played by the relevant United Nations bodies.

DIMITER TZANTCHEV (Bulgaria) said Bulgaria was fully committed to the principle that all persons, including those belonging to minorities, should live in dignity and should be able to fully enjoy all human rights. The fulfilment of that principle should be considered a sine qua non for the achievement of peace, security and sustainable development at the national and international levels. The Bulgarian Constitution prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, nationality, ethnic self-identity, sex, origin, religion, education, opinion, political affiliation, personal or social status. These Constitutional principles were further incorporated in particular articles in all branches of Bulgarian legislation. In September 2003, Parliament had adopted a comprehensive Protection against Discrimination Act which provided for additional protection against direct or indirect discrimination.

Constitutional and legislative guarantees of equality and non-discrimination alone might not always be sufficient to achieve those aims. The improvement of the situation of the Roma was among the main priorities of the Bulgarian Government. The state of the Roma population in Bulgaria had posed a series of challenges for the Government while at the same time it had stimulated Government efforts to implement urgent and efficient measures. According to the Bulgarian experience on Roma integration, the Government's concerted efforts should target mainly the social and economic problems of the Roma community.

HELENA MINA (Cyprus) said that with regard to the enclaved persons in the occupied part of Cyprus, theirs was a grave situation. Violations of the human rights of the Greek Cypriot and Maronite communities living in the northern part of Cyprus had been recognized, notably violations of the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, protection of property, the right to education and the right to respect for private and family life. Turkey was responsible by virtue of the fact that its responsibility extended to actions of its subordinate Turkish administration controlling part of Cyprus. Therefore Turkey had a general obligation to secure respect for the human rights of all persons in that area.

The Council of Europe had found Turkey responsible for 14 violations of the European Convention on human rights, and had held Turkey responsible for the actions of its subordinate local administration. It had also condemned Turkey and its subordinate local administration for the continuing violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the enclaved populations. Despite this, Turkey continued to violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Greek Cypriots and Maronites enclaved. This was in disregard of the rules and laws that had shaped the pan-European system of human rights.

RACHEL BRETT TAYLOR, of Friends World Committee for Consultation, in a joint statement with International Catholic Migration Commission, Jesuit Refugee Service, and Amnesty International, said the category of non-citizens was a broad one, including groups such as refugees, asylum-seekers, rejected asylum-seekers, documented and undocumented migrants, and stateless persons. What these diverse groups had in common was that they did not possess the nationality of the State in which they lived, or their nationality was disputed. Their lack of or disputed nationality made these individuals particularly vulnerable to discrimination and other serious abuses of their human rights, and this vulnerability was often heightened in situations such as conflict and extreme poverty or by matters of gender and age.

Everyone had the right to a nationality, yet millions around the world were denied that basic right, and even the approximate number was unknown. Virtually all States were affected by issues within their territory that related to statelessness.

DIANE ALA’I, of Baha’i International Community, speaking on behalf of Minority Rights Group International and International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, said the United Nations had been very slow in learning lessons from genocides and massacres involving minorities and indigenous peoples, but everyone should welcome the announcement by the Secretary-General of the creation of a post of Special Advisor on genocide prevention. That post would constitute an important step towards strengthening United Nations actions on genocide and other violent conflicts affecting minorities. But it was only a step. It was to be hoped that the Special Advisor would take effective action on the full range of situations in which violent conflicts threatened the very existence of minorities.

The key principle concerned the need for early action. The focus on genocide should not prevent the Special Advisor from taking action on a broad range of situations of tension involving minorities, which should all be seen as having the potential of developing into violent intercommunity conflict and genocide. By the time the world took note of the events in Rwanda, the situation required a military intervention none were willing to undertake. Non-governmental organizations had been advocating for three years now the appointment of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the question of violence against minorities, whose mandate could complement existing mechanisms.

DEVA KAUR KHALSA, of 3HO Foundation, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1,
called upon the Government of France to take immediate steps to prevent the implementation of its recently enacted legislation prohibiting the wearing of clearly religious clothing and other religious symbols in Government sponsored elementary and secondary schools. Enforcement of the legislation could have repercussions far beyond the borders of France. In addition, should the provisions of the legislation be implemented, they might encourage other nations throughout the world to enact similar legislation restricting the free observance of fundamental tenets of many minority religions in the schools, in the workplace and elsewhere.

Provisions of the legislation in France and, most recently, regulations affecting teachers and public servants of the Berlin Municipality, constituted a regression from progress so far achieved. Societies needed to address their identities in relation to their own pluralism and in relation to other nations and societies of the world. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief should seek clarification from the Government of France on this measure. The Government of France should extend an invitation to the Special Rapporteur to visit.

MAJID TRAMBOO, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, speaking on behalf of Rural Development Foundation; International Educational Development, and International Young Catholic Students, said the protection of minority rights was essential for human dignity, the underlying value of human rights and the stability and prosperity of States – and thus, for the prevention of conflict. Existing machinery to address the issue had the potential to address several minority-related problems. However, that potential had yet to be fully realized. Moreover, a number of experts, Governments and organizations were of the opinion that the important challenges facing minorities were not fully covered by the mandates of existing bodies for structural or functional reasons.

Regrettably, some States had deliberately and knowingly encouraged victimization and discrimination against minorities. That was the case with the Dalits of India. Indian Muslims, too, had been subject to interference with their freedom of religion, which usually took the form of slanderous attacks on Islam in school texts or the press, the desecration of mosques and shrines and the incitement of feelings of religious hatred against Muslims. For such reasons the proposal to establish a Special Representative of the Secretary-General on minorities related to conflict prevention deserved support.

EMILIE KAO, of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, speaking on behalf of World Evangelical Allliance, drew the Commission's attention to intensifying persecution of Sri Lanka's Christian minority. Last year, enemies of religious pluralism reportedly had committed over 90 acts of terror against Sri Lanka's Christians and Christian ministries. World Vision, a non-governmental relief agency, and its local partners were attacked. Churches were petrol bombed. Members of the clergy and their families were beaten and even set on fire, and female Christian workers were sexually assaulted.

The perpetrators claimed they were guarding Buddhism's constitutionally guaranteed foremost place. However, it would be naive to accept any characterization of that conflict as a clash between Christianity and Buddhism. Rather, it was a battle between those who treasured religious freedom and those who would destroy it. Regrettably, the country's judiciary had willingly lent its support to these human rights violations.

ALESSANDRO AULA, of Franciscans International, said millions of people around the world continued to be subjected to contemporary forms of slavery such as forced labour, bonded labour, and trafficking, despite the fact that such abuses were prohibited by a number of international human rights treaties. It was both shocking and shameful that the international community had not yet been able to ensure that one of the most fundamental and non-derogable rights, the freedom from slavery, was extended to all around the world.

All States should fully implement International Labour Office Conventions 29, 105 and 182 on forced labour and the worst forms of child labour, and should cooperate with the ILO’s Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour, particularly through concrete national action plans.

HASAN MAHMUD, of Interfaith International, said the caste system in India was an extreme form of discrimination mostly affecting the Dalits. The international community had for many years expressed its concern over the extreme forms of discrimination and human rights violations that Dalits in India were subject to.

The Government of India should ensure that the rights of the Dalits were upheld and enforced by law enforcement agencies. Concern also was felt over the current situation of Bangladesh’s indigenous community of Garo people. Too often, minority people were further marginalized by pseudo-non-governmental organization groups and/or individuals who claimed to represent their struggles and had no authority to carry out such advocacy work.



* *** *

1Joint statement on behalf of: 3HO Foundation; International Association for Counselling; Worldwide Organization for Women; Institute for Planetary Synthesis; International Association for Religious Freedom; All India Women’s Conference; World Organization of Former Pupils of Catholic Education; Interfaith International; Temple of Understanding and International Association of Educators for World Peace.