COMMISSION ADOPTS SIX RESOLUTIONS AND TWO DECISIONS ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights MORNING
15 April 2005


Concludes Debate on Specific Groups and
Individuals and the Report of the Sub-Commission;
Begins Review of Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights


The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted five resolutions and three decisions on the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights, including texts on the right to education, the realization of economic, social and cultural rights in all countries, access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, women’s equal land and housing ownership, corruption, non-discrimination, and the right to drinking water and sanitation.

The Commission also concluded its general debate on specific groups and individuals and the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and began its general debate on the promotion and protection of human rights.

In a resolution on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights in all countries, adopted by a recorded vote of 50 in favour to none against, with three abstentions, the Commission called upon States to give full effect to economic, social and cultural rights, to guarantee that they would be exercised without discrimination of any kind, and to secure their full realization progressively, through national development policies and with international assistance and cooperation.

Australia, the United States and Cuba offered statements on the resolution.

On the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, adopted as orally revised and by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to one against, with no abstentions, the Commission urged States to take steps to achieve progressively the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and called for assistance to developing countries. It also encouraged States to recognize the particular needs of persons with disabilities related to mental disorders, and to place a gender perspective at the centre of all policies and programmes affecting women's health. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was extended for an additional three years.

Canada, the United States, the Netherlands (speaking on behalf of the European Union) and Egypt offered statements on the resolution.

The Commission also adopted four resolutions and two decisions without votes, including a text on the right to education, by which it urged all States to give full effect to the right to education and to guarantee that this right was recognized and exercised without discrimination of any kind, to take all appropriate measures to eliminate obstacles limiting effective access to education, and to mainstream human rights education in educational activities, in order to strengthen respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By the resolution on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, the Commission called upon States to develop and implement national strategies to progressively realize access for all to prevention-related goods, services and information, as well as access to comprehensive treatment, care and support for all individuals infected and affected by such pandemics, and called upon States and other donors to support the Global Fund’s "3 by 5" initiative, as well as the World Health Organization’s "Roll Back Malaria: and "Stop TB" partnerships.

Additionally, by its resolution on women's equal ownership, access to and control over land and equal rights to own property and to adequate housing, the Commission urged Governments to comply fully with their international and regional obligations and commitments concerning land tenure, and the equality of women to own, have access to and control property, land and housing, irrespective of their marital status.

Also acting on three recommendations submitted to it by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Commission adopted a decision on corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, endorsing the Special Rapporteur on corruption’s attendance of the forthcoming “Friends of the Convention” meeting, and a decision to issue the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation in the official languages of the United Nations.

A decision, replacing a third Sub-Commission recommendation, concerning the study on non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was also adopted, in which the Commission approved the appointment of Marc Bossuyt as Special Rapporteur to undertake the study, based on the working paper prepared by Emmanuel Decaux and the comments received and discussions held at the fifty-sixth session of the Sub-Commission.

The United States, Cuba, Brazil, the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia offered statements on these resolutions and decisions.

Also this morning, the Commission concluded its general debate on specific groups and individuals and the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and began its discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights.

Addressing the Commission on the issue of specific groups and individuals were Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: World Union for Progressive Judaism; Human Rights Council of Australia; South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre; International Council of AIDS Service Organizations; Anti-Slavery International; Minority Rights Group International (in a joint statement with International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism); Jubilee Campaign; Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations (in a joint statement with B'nai B'rith International); Center for International Rehabilitation; Worldview International Foundation; Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples.

Making statements regarding the Sub-Commission’s report were Egypt, Cuba and Venezuela. Statements were also made by the non-governmental organizations International International Commission of Jurists (in a joint statement with International Service for Human Rights); Anti-Slavery International (in a joint statement with several NGOs1); Association for World Education (in a joint statement with Association of World Citizens and International Humanist and Ethical Union); National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Additionally, Egypt, Cuba, Chile (on behalf of the Community of Democracies), Pakistan, and Mexico (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States) addressed the Commission under its general debate on the promotion and protection of human rights.

The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon to continue its general debate on the promotion and protection of human rights including the status of the international covenants on human rights, human rights defenders, information and education, and science and the environment. It is also expected to hear presentations by the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for technical cooperation in the field of human rights, and the Independent Experts appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Haiti, Afghanistan and Somalia under its agenda item on advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights.

Action on Resolutions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.23) on the right to education, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged all States to give full effect to the right to education and to guarantee that this right was recognized and exercised without discrimination of any kind; to take all appropriate measures to eliminate obstacles limiting effective access to education, notably by girls, including pregnant girls, children living in rural areas, children belonging to minority groups, indigenous children, migrant children, refugee children, internally displaced children, children affected by armed conflicts, children with disabilities, children affected by infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS, sexually exploited children, children deprived of their liberty, children living in the street, working children and orphaned children; and to mainstream human rights education in educational activities, in order to strengthen respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Commission further urged States to adopt effective measures to encourage regular attendance at school and reduce school dropout rates; to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, in accordance with the best interest of the child; and to contribute to efforts to mobilize resources by the international community to assist all States to achieve the goal of education for all by 2015. It also invited the Special Rapporteur to intensify efforts aimed at identifying ways and means to overcome obstacles and difficulties in the realization of the right to education; and to review the interdependence and interrelatedness of the right to education with other human rights.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.24) on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour and none against, with three abstentions, the Commission called upon States to give full effect to economic, social and cultural rights; to guarantee that economic, social and cultural rights would be exercised without discrimination of any kind; to secure progressively, through national development policies and with international assistance and cooperation, full realization of economic, social and cultural rights, giving particular attention to individuals, most often women and children, especially girls, and communities living in extreme poverty and therefore most vulnerable and disadvantaged; and to help alleviate the unsustainable debt burden of countries that meet the criteria of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.

The Commission also called on States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to ensure that the Covenant was taken into account in all of their relevant national and international policy-making processes; and decided to encourage the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to continue its efforts towards the promotion, protection and full realization of the rights enshrined in the Covenant, at the national and international levels, notable by enhancing its cooperation with United Nations specialized agencies, programmes, special mechanisms and the other human rights; and by drafting further general comments to assist and promote the further implementation by States parties of the Covenant, and making the experience gained through the examination of States parties’ reports available for the benefit of all States parties. The Commission also welcomed the report of the open-ended Working Group of the Commission established with the view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and requested the Working Group to report to it at its next session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (50): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Against (0)

Abstentions (3): Australia, Saudi Arabia and United States.


JOSE CAETANO DA COSTA PEREIRA (Australia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that while Australia fully supported economic, social and cultural rights, and was party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it held reservations on the draft Optional Protocol. The rights in the Covenant were phrased in a broad manner, and did not provide information regarding how States could be held accountable. This resolution might also divert scant resources and duplicate other work of the United Nations. For this reason Australia requested a vote, and would abstain on the vote.

JOEL DANIES (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of the United States would abstain on this draft resolution as it did last year. The draft represented an overemphasis by the Commission on economic goals that were to be progressively achieved by each State, at the expense of civil and political rights that should be respected and enforced. In particular, the United States opposed the Working Group mentioned in operative paragraphs 14 and 15 whose goal was to draft an Optional Protocol to the International Convent on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The United States was concerned that any such instrument would purport to create legal entitlements to promote the justiciability of economic rights, thereby pushing all countries to take the same approach to economic, social and cultural rights. There was no one sure formula that would ensure adequate housing, health care, education and the array of asserted economic, social and cultural rights. With regard to the operative paragraph 8 concerning a so-called right to water, the United States did not believe it appropriate specifically to refer in resolutions to the general comments of treaty-based human rights committees, as those committees had not been given the mandate by the States parties to those treaties to issue binding or authoritative legal opinions.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the draft was an excellent proposal that aimed to achieve a balanced implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. This category of rights must be addressed on the same footing as civil and political rights, as had been affirmed at the 1993 Vienna Conference. It was surprising to see some countries calling the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights into question. An Optional Protocol would constitute a step forward in their protection, and in looking at individual violations around the world. The issue was of particular concern to developing countries, which were urged to vote in favour of the draft.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.27) on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon States to develop and implement national strategies, in accordance with applicable international law, including international agreements acceded to, in order to progressively realize access for all to prevention-related goods, services and information as well as access to comprehensive treatment, care and support for all individuals infected and affected by pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. It further called upon States to establish or strengthen national health and social infrastructures and health-care systems, with the assistance of the international community as necessary, for the effective delivery of prevention, treatment, care and support to respond to pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

The Commission also called upon States to adopt effective measures to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV and to facilitate access to antiretroviral therapy, safe delivery practices and breast-milk substitutes which were feasible and safe. Moreover, it called upon States and other donors to the Global Fund to Fights AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to cooperate in supporting the "3 by 5" initiative launched jointly by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS with the aim of providing antiretroviral treatment to 3 million people in the developing world by the end of 2005; and to ensure that those at risk of contracting malaria, in particular pregnant women and children under five years of age, benefit from the most suitable combination of personal and community protective measures. They also called upon States to provide the necessary support for the World Health Organization "Roll Back Malaria: and "Stop TB" partnerships in ongoing measures to combat malaria and tuberculosis.

Before the resolution was adopted the Commission voted on the amendments proposed by the United States by a recorded vote, rejecting them with one in favour to 51 against, with one abstention.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (1): United States.

Against (51): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Abstention (1): Japan.


DAVID HOHMAN (United States), said in a general comment that this was a very important resolution, but the United States could not support language in some of the paragraphs, including operative paragraph 14. During informal negotiations, Member States had expressed the view that assessments were to be carried out at the national level. Preliminary Paragraph 1 was also problematic, as some States, including the United States, had not ratified this Covenant, and therefore could not uphold it. More standard language would have been preferred. Preliminary Paragraph 2 required an addition for the phrase not to be construed as allowing legal rights. The United States wanted amendments to this effect, and wished for a vote on these as a whole.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said economic, social and cultural rights were also binding. Cuba could not accept the amendment tabled by the United States and requested a vote on the amendment.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that since Brazil could not accept the proposals to amend the text, submitted by the United States, Brazil would also request a roll-call vote on the amendments proposed.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.28) on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, adopted as orally revised and by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to one against, with no abstentions, the Commission urged States to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of their available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and called upon the international community to continue to assist the developing countries in promoting the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including through financial and technical support as well as training of personnel, while recognizing that the primary responsibility for promoting and protecting all human rights rests with States.

The Commission encouraged States to recognize the particular needs of persons with disabilities related to mental disorders, as well as their families, including by reflecting their needs in national health and social policies, such as national poverty reduction strategies; and called upon them to place a gender perspective at the centre of all policies and programmes affecting women's health. They also called upon States to protect and promote sexual and reproductive health as integral elements of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and decided to extend, for a period of three years, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

The result of the vote was as follows:

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

Against (1): United States.


HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada), in a general comment, said Canada gave a high priority to the right to health, and had co-sponsored the resolution in the past. The contribution in the report of the Special Rapporteur was appreciated, and he should continue his work, and his re-appointment was endorsed. His work for those with psychiatric, mental or intellectual disabilities had raised awareness of a neglected issue, and this was appreciated. Disability was not however a single issue, but cut across many economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health. The resolution did not take into account the human rights and the medical rights of persons with mental disabilities. There were however problems with some of the terminology in the text, and that persons with intellectual disabilities were not included in the text. It was not just a question of terminology, but went to the substance of that which the text should address, and this continued to perpetuate the invisibility perpetuated by the Special Rapporteur. This was why Canada could not co-sponsor the resolution this year.

DAVID HOHMAN (United States), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of the United States was not in a position to agree to preambular paragraphs 1 and 2 of the resolution for the same reasons outlined during the consideration of the resolution on access to medications. The delegation of the United States had requested that the co-sponsors use standard language in preambular paragraph 1 that was contained in other resolutions, not language that recalled treaties to which not all States parties had affirmed their obligations pursuant to treaties to which they had become a party. There were a number of ways to remedy that paragraph, but no flexibility was found on the part of the co-sponsors to accommodate his delegation’s concern. With respect to preambular paragraph 2, the United States believed that while the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights required government action, those rights were not an immediate entitlement to a citizen. The United States would not support reviewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, as reflected in operative paragraph 19 of the resolution. The delegation of the United States would ask that the adoption of the resolution be decided by a recorded vote.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said persons with mental disabilities were among the most marginalized persons in society, as had been emphasized by the Special Rapporteur on the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The European Union welcomed Brazil’s decision to focus on the text on this population, but said there should be recognition that, while certain health needs might arise for persons with disabilities, their situation was not just a medical issue, but also a social issue. A global human rights approach was essential to ensure the full participation of persons with disabilities in society. Nothing in the text should be taken as prejudicing the ongoing negotiations of the Ad Hoc Working Group elaborating a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Regarding the terminology in the text, the European Union would have liked to see a specific reference to persons with intellectual disabilities, whom the Special Rapporteur had highlighted as remaining among the most neglected and invisible members of society. Nevertheless, the European Union was able to support the resolution, and expressed full support for the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in particular.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the co-sponsors were thanked for their support and for the elements added to the draft. It was a question related to the report that had been submitted by the Special Rapporteur on health, included in document /51. This report addressed a number of extremely important issues in an objective and scientific manner, but also a number of references with no scientific basis were addressed. Egypt could not accept these. Moreover, having made known the position regarding this, it could support the draft resolution, and therefore acknowledged the importance of the resolution, and would not ask for a separate vote on any of the paragraphs.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.34) on women's equal ownership, access to and control over land and equal rights to own property and to adequate housing, adopted as orally revised and without a vote, the Commission urged Governments to comply fully with their international and regional obligations and commitments concerning land tenure and the equality of women to own, have access and to control property, land and housing, irrespective of their marital status, and to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing; and encouraged them to support the transformation of customs and traditions that discriminated against women and denied women security of tenure and equal ownership of, access to and control over land and equal rights to own property and to adequate housing, and to take other measures to increase access to land and housing for women living in poverty. Moreover, it called upon States to urgently address discrimination, inequality and historical injustices experienced by women in vulnerable situations.

The Commission urged Governments to address the issue of forced relocation and forced evictions from home and land and to eliminate its disproportionate impact on women; and invited the Secretary-General to encourage all organizations and bodies of the United Nations system, individually and collectively, to undertake further initiatives that promoted women’s equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing, and allocated further resources for studying, documenting and addressing the impact of complex emergency situations and the HIV/AIDS pandemic, particularly with respect to women’s equal rights to own land, property and adequate housing.

GOLI AMERI (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States was firmly committed to the empowerment of women, and affirmed the objectives of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action based on several understandings. Concerning preambular paragraphs 4, 9, 12 and operative paragraph 4, the United States could not support the right to adequate housing or housing rights, because such a right did not exist. The United States regretted that the resolution failed to address the crucial issue of inheritance rights for women. Sovereign States should determine through open, participatory debate and democratic processes, the policies and programmes they considered would be most effective in progressively realizing the achievement of economic, social and cultural rights and objectives.

In a decision on corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission, taking note of Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2004/4 of 9 August 2004, endorsed the request to the Secretary-General to facilitate the work of the Special Rapporteur on corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, by enabling her to attend the meetings of the “Friends of the Convention” which take place in Vienna.

The Commission adopted, without a vote, a decision (E/CN.4/2005/L.26) on the study on non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which replaced an earlier draft decision on the same issue. By the terms of the text, the Commission, while taking note of Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2004/5 of 9 August 2004, approved the decision of the Sub-Commission to appoint Marc Bossuyt as Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, based on the working paper prepared by Emmanuel Decaux (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/24), and on the comments received and the discussions held at the fifty-sixth session of the Sub-Commission, in close cooperation with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It also approved the decision to request the Special Rapporteur to submit a preliminary report to the Sub-Commission at its fifty-seventh session, an interim report at its fifty-eighth session and a final report at its fifty-ninth session.

JOEL DANIES (United States) said in a general comment that an amendment was proposed, to add “within existing resources” in the third line of the statement after the phrase “Special Rapporteur to”.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said in a general comment that it would be fair and appropriate for this study to be done in full cooperation with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Cuba could not accept the suggestion of the United States, as there were pressures on the work of the Sub-Committee, and it could not afford to make more studies. Mr Bossuyt was an excellent Expert, and it was not exclusively a third-world approach, and as a member of the Sub-Commission he required extra time and would need costs. Therefore, the necessary resources for that should be assigned. Should the United States insist on the amendments, Cuba would vote against it, but would prefer there to be no vote.

JOEL DANIES (United States) said in a general comment that the United States was concerned that all United Nations activities should be done within the resources allocated, and that applied to the Sub-Commission as well as to all other bodies. However, Cuba had had enough fun for the week, so the amendment was withdrawn.

The Commission adopted, without a vote, a decision on the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation, by which it took note of resolution 2004/6 of 9 August 2004 of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and decided to approve the request of the Sub-Commission to have the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, notably E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/10, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/WP.3 and E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/20, issued in the official languages of the United Nations.

Comments at the End of the Process of Taking Action on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in an explanation of the vote after the vote on behalf of the European Union, said many delegations, particularly the African Group, had serious and genuine concerns over the illicit transportation and dumping of toxic waste. However, the Union believed that the resolution was more related to the environment than to human rights. Putting such action in a human rights context would serve to benefit neither human rights nor the environment. The draft did not reflect the Union’s understanding of some important concepts in international human rights law.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that the delegation of Saudi Arabia had missed the vote on the resolution on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights. He wished to have his intention to vote in favour of the text recorded.

LUCY TAMLYN (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, recalled that regarding the text on the right to education, world leaders had adopted the Millennium Declaration in 2000, which had brought together a variety of development goals agreed at various international fora. She also noted that, in 2001, the Secretariat had issued a report crystallizing various “Millennium Development Goals” with indicators, which had not been agreed by the Member States. It was important to distinguish between these two sets of goals, and that distinction should have been reflected in the text on the right to education.

General Debate on Specific Groups and Individuals

DAVID LITTMAN, of World Union for Progressive Judaism, said there was a neglected issue, the exodus of Oriental Jews who had suffered the habitual religious-ethnic cleansing whether by violent means or otherwise from Arab countries. The dire hardships suffered by these ancient communities, who had managed to survive from time immemorial, was never examined by the United Nations, nor the loss of their inestimable historic heritage and their private property. There was grave concern at the blindness of the international community. The 31 Member States who voted for the resolution on combating defamation of religions were apparently unconcerned by the absence from that resolution of any mention of those who defamed Islam by claiming to kill in its name or in the name of Allah.

HOWARD GLENN, of Human Rights Council of Australia, said he believed that the Commission has a crucial role to play in the advancement of the protection and promotion of human rights of all peoples. Increased attention was being given to the denial of human rights to people on the basis of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. Those were not new rights, but more action needed to be taken, as commented through many of the special procedures and treaty bodies over recent years. The International Commission of Jurists had published an excellent document summarizing this. A wide range of non-governmental organizations were meeting and working to promote dialogue and initiatives to increase protection from persecution and other gross human rights violations on the grounds of sexual orientating or gender identity.

KATHERINE SCHLITT, of South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said the Ahmadiyya community of Bangladesh had been the target of a vicious campaign of hate speech over the past one and a half years. As a result, the Ahmadiyyas had been the victims of acts of intimidation, including attacks on their mosques, destruction of property, social boycotts, forced evictions and murderous assaults. The Government had failed to investigate these abuses. Instead, a ban on all Ahmadiyya publications had been issued. The acts of violence perpetrated against the Ahmadiyya community stood in flagrant violation of the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Bangladesh had ratified in 2000. Far from safeguarding public order, the ban gave further ammunition to anti-Ahmadiyya groups in their political campaign for a non-secular State. The international community must exhort the Government to reaffirm its allegiance to the rule of law, and to the supremacy of fundamental rights and freedoms.

SANJAY GATHIA, of International Council of AIDS Service Organizations, said the International Council had documented human rights violations in four countries: Thailand, India, Indonesia and the Philippines, many of which took place in health care facilities, including violations of confidentiality for testing, stigma and discrimination. Mandatory testing for HIV/AIDS was another violation which had serious implications for people’s health and their ability to function in society. Many HIV-positive people were fit to work but could not, as their employers fired them or they were not hired. There was a call for access to health care which was non-discriminatory. HIV-positive people needed the protection of their rights.

CHRISTIANE DEHOY, of Anti-Slavery International, drew attention to the human rights situation in Burma. The right to freedom of movement had been highly restricted; the Government had been practicing slavery-like activities in many parts of the country. The use of forced labour had been common. In some parts of the country, people had to get permission from the State in order to get married. The police had been playing an important role in repressing individuals belonging to minority groups. In addition, refugees living in the country had been subjected to various kinds of repression and discrimination. Anti-Slavery International was concerned by the fate of many people whose rights had been violated by the regime in place and the practices of slavery against the members of the minority groups. The Commission should urge the Government to refrained from its practices and respect the rights of people under its territory.

FLAVIA CANGIA, of Minority Rights Group International, in a joint statement with International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, welcomed the proposed establishment of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General on minorities, stressing that while 20 to 40 per cent of the world’s population were minorities, this was a constantly neglected issue. The existing Working Group on minorities was only ad hoc, and sat on the lowest rung of the United Nations hierarchy. The United Nations must wake up to the need for a more effective mechanism on minority rights. Thus, it was unfortunate that the related resolution had proposed to reduce the session of the Working Group by two days, in a bid to save a few thousand dollars. The Working Group should be made permanent, and should become the voice of minorities within the United Nations system, while the Special Representative should engage with Governments on behalf of minorities. It was essential that the Special Representative should be full resourced, and enabled to interact directly with minority representatives.

DOO AH LEE, of Jubilee Campaign, said at the end of the Korean War, approximately 50,000 prisoners of war from the Republic of Korea were detained inside the territory of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by the Government. During the war, civilians were also abducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Army, but their existence had been denied by the Government. Refugees from that country to the Republic of Korea were not even left to live a normal life. These abductees were now executed in public to terrorise the mind of rebelling citizens, but the Government of the Republic of Korea had never raised this matter on any occasion. There was concern for the fate of many Korean women deported from China to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Commission should urge that Government to obey international treaties and amend its law accordingly.

MAURICE ABOUDARAM, of Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, in a joint statement with B'nai B'rith International, said that as the international community reflected on the Holocaust and observed the current treatment of the Jewish people, one wondered what lessons the international community had learned. The ability of one regime to marginalize and exterminate its own minorities and spread that concept across an entire continent was far from being history. That same anti-Jewish sentiment was present throughout the Arab world in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, when Jewish minorities numbering over 700,000 felt compelled to leave their countries. Even today, Arab media defiled Jews and Israel as the root cause of every suffering in the region. He called all victim minorities to show solidarity with these Arab Jews as they had shown with them, as witnessed, for example, by the event which B’nai B’rith International organized during the Commission’s session to protest the treatment inflicted on the minority population of Darfur.

MARIA VERONICA REINA, of Center for International Rehabilitation, delivering a joint statement, asked why more than 600 million persons with disabilities had remained almost invisible during the Commission’s sixty-first session. Such a big minority should have its own item or sub-item of the agenda. The treaty now being negotiated on the rights of persons with disabilities should serve as a legally-binding instrument. All Governments should be aware that the global disability movement was united in support of both the Convention, and the United Nations Standard Rules on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. The Convention should not be taken as an alternative to the Standard Rules, but as complementary to them. All Governments should continue to implement the Standard Rules. The full realization of equal opportunities for all persons with disabilities must be seen both as an investment in the development of human resources, and a step-by-step fulfilment of fundamental rights. All Special Rapporteurs and treaty monitoring bodies should take the realization of human rights by persons with disabilities into account in their mandates.

SAW HLA HENRY, of Worldview International Foundation, said Burma’s economy was a mess. It was regarded by the international community as a human rights disaster zone and an economic embarrassment. The total number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) who had been forced to leave their homes and had not been able to return and reintegrate was currently estimated to be at least 526,000 people. More than half the internally displaced households were forced to work without compensation, and cash or property were extorted from them. These and other human rights abuses were widespread. The Commission had an excellent opportunity to assess challenges for the international community in promoting a more protective environment for IDPs in Burma.

KIM VANCE, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said members of her community had been subjected to discrimination. Human rights were for all humans, but her community usually did not enjoy those fundamental freedoms, because they were not perceived as having rights or humanity. Its members were considered sub-human, and they lost they jobs, faced persecution every day and were even killed because of their sexual orientation as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and inter-sex. They faced abuse ranging from being cursed and sworn at, to being made to feel that they were less human than others. They were rejected by their own families, ostracized from society, they lost their work and homes, were denied health care and other services, and violence against them could lead to hospitalisation or even death. In Fiji and in Saudi Arabia, cases of persecution had been reported. In Fiji, although there were legal provisions protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, still they were subjected to discrimination. She called on the Commission to deal with the issue of sexual orientation and gender-related, and to adopt a resolution on that issue.

ESTELA BARNOS DE CARLOTTO, of International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples, said hundreds of children, who had today grown into adult men and women, had been appropriated by the Argentine dictatorship, and remained hostages and war booty held by the thieves that had stolen them away. They had been deprived of their identities, histories and families. This was a contemporary form of slavery. The Commission should restore their rights. There was no justification for the idea that the material well-being they enjoyed could make up for the rights they lacked. No gilded cage could make up for the love of families. It should be understood that these individuals had suffered a two-fold victimization due to their own disappearance, and that of their parents.

General Debate on the Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

MOHAMED LOUTFY (Egypt), said the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had played a vital role to defend the issues of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular issues of colonialism and the rights of migrants and indigenous peoples, and had enriched international humanitarian law through continued initiatives and the formulation of new concepts such as thematic studies on issues of particular interest to the international community and linking these to human rights in a manner that would ensure the respect for human rights both nationally and internationally. This confirmed the important role of the Sub-Commission as an important power for human rights. It had also presented many initiatives to the Commission. The Sub-Commission was the highest independent organ concerned with the promotion and protection of human rights within the United Nations system.

Attempts to contain and reduce the role of the Sub-Commission and to question its independence and impartiality had been noted with great concern. Some proposals had caused for the abolition of some of its competences and the establishment of a parallel body. This proposal would undermine the role played by the body, and could lead to its total abolition. The impartiality and independence of the Sub-Commission and its Experts was not in question, and although its work could be said to lack impartiality in some instances, the politicisation of the work of the Commission and the confrontations therein would illustrate clearly the true situation. Egypt would like to voice its deep concern, as some individuals here exploited the work of the Sub-Commission in order to distort it, and these attempts were rejected. Attempts by some to question the integrity of members of the Sub-Commission were also rejected. The role of the body as part of the human rights system was appreciated, and the efforts made by it were applauded.

CLAUDIA PEREZ ALVAREZ (Cuba) said barely five years ago, the Commission had concluded the broadest assessment ever made to date with regard to the functioning of each and every one of the mechanisms available to it to exercise the functions assigned to it by the Council since its inception in 1946, including the Sub-Commission. After two years of hard work and complicated negotiations, that assessment-oriented exercise had resulted in a very delicate consensus, based on a well-balanced assessment between opposing positions on, inter alia, the role that those mechanisms should play in the context of the Commission. Such consensus was included in decision 2000/019, adopted by the Commission on 26 April that year. The Sub-Commission was profoundly reviewed as regard both the content of its functions and the means and resources it had to carry them out.

The delegation of Cuba specifically expressed its unflinching support to the continuation of the existence of the Sub-Commission as a subsidiary body of the Commission, with the mandate resulting from the consensus through its decision 2000/109; its total rejection of every attempt which explicitly or tacitly implied some limitation to the sovereign power of every Member State to designate as candidate any of its nationals who had the appropriate technical and ethical requirements cut out for that endeavou.

WENDY VITERI (Venezuela) welcomed the reports submitted by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, especially that of the High Commissioner on the social responsibility of transnational corporations. The presence of these enterprises could provide substantial advantage to host countries, but lack of regard for their social responsibility could also lead to violations of human rights, including increased poverty, exclusion and environmental degradation. Venezuela, which had experienced a growth of 17.4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2004, acknowledged its interest in strengthening human rights with regard to transnational corporations, and supported the elaboration of universal standards on transnational corporations’ social responsibility. It was indispensable to clarify the concepts of spheres of influence, complicity and jurisdiction. There should also be an analysis of the human rights dimension within the framework of that social responsibility, and the legal nature of that responsibility. Venezuela appreciated all voluntary initiatives by transnational corporations to improve livings standards and augment the common good. Social responsibility was a condition that made it possible for human rights to be enjoyed, and served as part and parcel of contributions to the common good.

CLAIRE CALESON, of International Commission of Jurists, in a joint statement with International Service for Human Rights, said over the past years, an increasing number of cases of business companies involved in serious human rights violations had been documented. The growing acknowledgement of the powerful impact that business could have on the enjoyment of human rights, both negative and positive, had underlined the need for the Commission to address the issue by establishing a special mechanism. It was felt that the Commission’s commitment to this issue was declining. It should live up to its promise and endow the Special Representative with a meaningful mandate that would allow a move forwards towards the development and adoption of common international standards for the responsibilities of businesses with regard to human rights.

PH. D. UMAKANT, of Anti-Slavery International, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, in a joint statement, said discrimination based on work and descent had historically been a feature of societies in different regions of the world and today still affected a significant proportion of the world’s population, an estimated 260 million people, including the Dalits in South Asia, the Burakumin of Japan, and caste-affected communities from other Asian and African countries. Although affected communities from Asia and African were highly diverse in geographical and historical origin, they shared to a greater or lesser extent several key characteristics that were inherently productive of discrimination and human rights violations. Dalit and other affected communities suffered discrimination, injustice and violence, sometimes of an obvious extreme nature, but more often of a subtle systemic nature. They faced persisting untouchability practices, experienced lack of access to land, water, housing and education, issues for forced and bonded labour, and most of them continued to live in extreme poverty, particularly in rural areas.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement with Association of World Citizens and International Humanist and Ethical Union, said that the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had recognized that systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices could constitute crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, and that the perpetrators of these crimes should be held to account. In that regard, he wished to bring to the attention of the Commission the situation of 336 Black Sudanese slaves, who had been liberated between 23 March and 14 April 2005. Preliminary interviews with 51 former female slaves over the age of 11 years showed that 37 per cent had been subjected to female genital mutilation, 71 per cent had been raped, 51 per cent had been forcibly converted to Islam, 98 per cent had been subjected to racial insults, and 100 per cent had been physically abused and forced to work without pay. In early February, the Sudanese Government had suspended the repatriation of freed slaves to southern Sudan in response to criticism from UNICEF. That agency’s head was to give a press conference next Monday morning, at which she should be asked why UNICEF had preferred to suspend the slave retrieval operation, contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of slaves and their families, and why UNICEF continued to refuse to call a slave a slave, preferring the term “abductee”.

ISABELLE HERNANDEZ, of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said transnational corporations should have responsibilities towards human rights and respect for the rule of law. The Commission was commended for its inclusion of this issue in the topics for discussion, as only through international dialogue and transparency could the international community create the environment necessary for the acceptance of human rights into everyday business decisions. The free market and entrepreneurship were the best way to create sustainable economic growth in developing nations, and to function effectively it required a strong foundation of rules and institutions and in the global arena these were sorely lacking. It was the task of Governments and international institutions to make these rules.

MISHANA HOSSEINIOUN, of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said it was time for transnational corporations and businesses to walk the path with the world towards an International Bill of Rights because it would make sense and it was profitable for all. Many responsible businesses were currently adopting corporation codes of conduct and that was admirable. Yet, for the time being, such responsible organizations were at a clear disadvantage in the face of unscrupulous businesses that did not apply the same standards. What that taught them was that capitalism – unregulated – was a race to the bottom. Unless it was set anew on its proper course, it would be unable to serve its intended function – that of generating sufficient wealth to solve the social problems of the globe and to comfortably fund such needs as education and health care.

Documents on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it a number of reports.

There is the report of the Secretary-General on human rights and the environment as part of sustainable development (E/CN.4/2005/96). The report analyses some of the developments that have taken place at the international, regional and national level in recognition of the link between the protection of the natural environment and the enjoyment of human rights. It concludes that since the World Summit on Sustainable Development, there has been growing recognition of the connection between environmental protection and human rights.

There is the report of the Secretary-General on human rights and bioethics (E/CN.4/2005/93), which contains summaries of substantive information provided pursuant to resolution 2003/69 by the Governments of Azerbaijan, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Mauritius, the Philippines, Qatar and the United States of America, as well as information on the activities of human rights bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

There is another report of the Secretary-General on public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2005/92), which was launched by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988 to increase understanding and awareness of human rights and fundamental freedoms and educating the public on the international machinery available for the promotion and protection of those rights and freedoms and the efforts of the United Nations to realize them. The report lists several examples of public outreach programmes, including briefings, exhibits and training courses, and includes lists, in particular, the activities of the United Nations Department of Public Information in promoting human rights.

There is the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (E/CN.4/2005/100). It reviews action undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations human rights system pursuant to the resolutions, in furtherance of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The report notes that United Nations human rights mechanisms continue to express deep concern over counter-terrorism measures that jeopardize human rights and fundamental freedoms.

There is also the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the follow-up to the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004), including the proclamation of the World Programme for Human Rights Education (E/CN.4/2005/98). The report includes information on related events that took place during 2004 and, in particular, the proclamation by the General Assembly, on 10 December 2004, of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, to start on 1 January 2005.

There is the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on a compilation of the essential aspects of replies received on the pre-draft declaration on human social responsibilities (E/CN.4/2005/99). The report notes that the Office received 30 replies: 27 from Governments, two from intergovernmental organizations and one from a non-governmental organization.

There is the report of the Seminar on good governance practices for the promotion of human rights (E/CN.4/2005/97), held in Seoul in September 2004. The meeting concluded that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between good governance and human rights and that there is no exhaustive definition of the notion of good governance. However, common elements could be identified: participation, accountability, transparency, (State) responsibility and accessibility, in particular to marginalized groups. Technocratic approaches to good governance should be avoided. Participants also concluded that there is a need for greater awareness of good governance and its relationship to human rights, particularly from the perspective of political will and public participation and awareness.

There is also a note by the Secretariat on views of States parties to the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide on the Secretary-General's proposal that they consider setting up a committee on the prevention of genocide (E/CN.4/2005/46). The note indicates that the majority of replies by States parties indicated support, in principle, for the proposed initiative while others raised concerns about the proposal.

There is another document which contains the written submission by the United Nations Development Programme (E/CN.4/2005/133) on its activities in several areas being considered by the Commission, including the promotion and protection of human rights.

General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

MOHAMED LOUTFY (Egypt) said the Government of Egypt had undertaken all necessary steps to strengthen understanding and respect for the principles of human rights, which had required an integrated effort across many areas, including education at every level. The Government had undertaken public information campaigns through the mass media, as well as the training of workers in the administration of justice, in order to increase awareness of the constant evolution of human rights. The National Council on Human Rights had issued its first report on the human rights situation in the country, which was being studied. The report reflected the Government’s integrity, independence and commitment to strengthen the protection and promotion of human rights, which had been demonstrated by the establishment of a group bringing together five ministries to study complaints and taken necessary steps to redress them. The National Assembly had also established an human rights committee to recommend legislative initiatives for the strengthening of human rights in Egypt. There had also been a Presidential initiative to amend the Constitution for universal suffrage in presidential elections.

Regarding armed conflicts, he said that it led to the suffering of women and children, and other civilians, as a result of human rights violations. It was necessary for the Commission to protect the human rights of civilians during armed conflicts. Both international humanitarian law and international human rights law pursued a single end -- the protection of individual dignity and the amelioration of suffering. This had been reaffirmed in a number of Commission resolutions, and in the final declarations of international conferences. The Commission had a vital role to play in the protection and promotion of the human rights of civilians in armed conflicts. As could be seen, it had historically played an important role in defending the human rights of people in countries suffering under colonialism and apartheid. Thus, it was necessary to strengthen the role of the Commission for the protection of the rights of civilians in armed conflict.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), said the issue at hand allowed the debate and adoption of a significant number of the initiatives that the Commission adopted every year. However, it would not be honest to say that its treatment allowed the fulfilment of the objective for which it was included in the programme: the need to promote and protect human rights through a genuine and transparent international cooperation that respected the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and promoted a respectful dialogue. The principles of objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity were, for a sizeable part of the countries from the industrialised North, just simple and phoney slogans of a rhetoric produced to meet the requirements of their domestic policies and embellish their schemes for international domination.

New proposals for reforms emerged today in order to ensure control of the Commission by the hegemonic superpower. Far from solving the essential cause of the discredit of the Commission - the imperial behaviour of the United States and its closest allies - it would become a chronic and structural phenomenon, with the removal of the few obstacles which today prevented the superpower from fully using the Commission in its hegemonic domination project. The draft decision on human social responsibilities enshrined the perfect harmony, compatibility and complementarity between rights and human duties, and established no conditions or pre-requirements whatsoever to the enjoyment of the rights of each human being, but encouraged the respect for the conditions and indispensable values so that everybody could exercise it without discrimination. Cuba would, under this agenda item, submit four draft resolutions aimed at vindicating the international order that proclaimed article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as indispensable so that all human rights could brcome true for all. Cuba was part of those who were convinced that humanity did not have a vocation for self-destruction, and that, united, it would be able to overcome all obstacles.

JUAN EDUARDO EGUIGUREN (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Community of Democracies, said that the Community had been attempting to strengthen democratic processes around the world by helping to promote democratization. That commitment had been reaffirmed at the ministerial conference in 2002. At the next ministerial conference, the participants would undertake action for the future of democracy, including through the protection and promotion of human rights. The Community stressed that human rights were best protected and promoted under democratic systems, which made it possible quickly and justly to punish all violations, and to remedy shortcomings. The Community also expressed strong support for the draft resolution on the role of good governance in promotion and protection of human rights.

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan) said the Commission was facing a credibility deficient and a crisis of professionalism with its over arching emphasis on civil and political rights while subjecting most initiatives on economic, social and cultural rights to controversial interpretations impeding international consensus on their implementation. For the large majority of the United Nations Member States, which belonged to the ranks of the developing world, the promotion of civil and political rights was integrated and closely linked to the promotion of economic, social and cultural rights. Poverty had been recognized as the singular source of many human rights violations. It signified an absence of conditions that were essential for ensuring the preservation of human dignity, which lay at the heart of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Poverty bred illiteracy, lack of opportunity, poor human resources, weak administrative and legal infrastructures and law enforcement, diseases, homelessness, unavailability of safe drinking water and poor health facilities, among other things.

It was imperative that the international community converge its efforts to the eradication of poverty from the globe. Poor countries needed good governance and institutions and mechanisms that could ensure rule of law and freedom from abuse that their absence engendered. The national efforts needed to be complemented by international community and the creation of an abling environment that implied debt reduction, flow of international financial assistance in accordance with the internationally agreed principles, as highlighted in the Millennium Declaration and the United Nations Secretary-General in his larger freedom report. Promotion of development, growth and equitable opportunities for all in each society could make the crucial contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights. Security, development and human rights were interdependent, the international community needed to translate that understanding into a reality.

LUIS JAVIER CAMPUZANO (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), said the Decade for Human Rights Education, which began in 1994, had had tangible results, which had made it possible to enhance sensitivities and national capacities. The General Assembly had adopted the World Programme for Human Rights Education, which could play an essential role in strengthening values and principles of the dignity of the human being. Education should be first and foremost something that built agreement and consensus, and the future plan of action created by the OHCHR, UNESCO and civil society would be indispensable to create stable and harmonious agreement between communities. Human rights training would make it possible to inculcate principles of dignity and tolerance without any distinctions due to any opinions, origin, economic status or birth or any other reason.

The world programme for human rights education, which had a global vision, would be the adequate vehicle to convey the needs of vulnerable groups. It would make it also possible to promote national actions and plans in support with compliance with the Millennium Development Goals. It would also make it easier to better define the responsibilities of Governments, with the aim of making tangible progress in each and every country. It would require commitment by States in order to be applied within a reasonable timeframe. GRULAC was optimistic for the future in the context of this programme.



1Joint statement on behalf of: Anti-Slavery International; Pax Romana; Habitat International Coalition; Lutheran World Federation; Human Rights Watch; International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; Robert F. Kennedy Memorial; Minority Rights Group International; Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development and Asian Legal Resource Centre.


CORRIGENDUM

In press release HR/CN/05/49 of 14 April, the statement by Palestine on page 5 should read as follows:

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said listening to the statement of the distinguished Representative of Israel, one would think it was the Palestinian people who were the occupiers, and the Israelis who were the occupied. He had referred to the question of terrorism. What had more to do with terrorism than occupation itself? Palestine agreed that there were double standards. However, they affected Israel because of the protection extended to it. Israel was out of step with the rest of the world. The Israeli occupation of the Arab and Palestinian territories was the only occupation that had been going on for decades in recent history, and the Palestinians yearned for the day that it would end. The question of talking about what was agreed in the Oslo Agreement was camouflage and brainwashing, and it did not work in the Commission.

The distinguished delegate of Israel had talked about Oslo and what was agreed there. He had not been there, and the speaker had himself been involved in the negotiations, and knew exactly what was written there. The speakers also knew what was said by President Bush to President Sharon, that he should respect the Road Map. Palestinians accepted the Road Map, as did the international community, but the Israelis were continuing the construction of settlements around Jerusalem, and this was illegal. The Israeli delegate had talked about the Gaza Strip. The Israeli disengagement plan stated that Israel "will retain an exclusive control over the perimeter of the evacuated area and its air space". It was clear that Israel was not meeting its commitments. Palestinians wanted Israel to leave, and leave forever, and live with the Palestinians as good neighbours. Palestinians had been rewarded for their good faith by the deaths of three children playing simple games of football on the border. This was not the act of a State that should be respected at the Commission. All members should judge Israel by what it did, and not by what it said.

* *** *

For use of ingformation only; not an official record