COMMISSION ADOPTS TEXTS ON RACISM, ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS, ISRAELI PRACTICES IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY AND SYRIAN GOLAN

Commission on Human Rights
MORNING

14 April 2005


Continues General Debate on Specific
Groups and Individuals


The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted four resolutions on practices fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination; Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and the Syrian Golan; Israeli practices affecting the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory; and on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan.

Under its agenda item on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, the Commission adopted a resolution on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contributed to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance by a roll-call vote of 46 in favour to none opposed, with four abstentions. In the text, the Commission expressed alarm at the spread in many parts of the world of various extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups. The Commission called upon States to take more effective measures to combat these phenomena and the extremist movements, which posed a real threat to democratic values.

Commenting on the resolution were the United States and the Netherlands.

Under its agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the Commission adopted a resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan by a roll-call vote of 39 in favour to two opposed, with 12 abstentions. In the text, the Commission expressed grave concern at the continuing Israeli settlements and related activities, in violation of international law; and demanded that Israel, the occupying power, comply fully with its legal obligations.

In a resolution on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 in favour, to ten opposed, with 14 abstentions, the Commission condemned the use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians. The Commission demanded that Israel comply with its legal obligations under international law, and that it cease the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.

And in a resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour to two opposed, with 19 abstentions, the Commission called upon Israel, the occupying power, to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan.

Speaking as concerned countries on the three resolutions were Israel, Palestine, and Syria. Commenting on the resolutions were Egypt (on behalf of the Arab Group), Honduras, Canada, the United States, the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), Guatemala, Italy (on behalf of the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Hungary) and Argentina.

The Commission then resumed its general debate on specific groups and individuals, during which speakers focused, among other things, on the situation of migrants and of religious and ethnic minorities. Representatives of non-governmental organizations focused, among other things, on the situation of migrants, noting that the children of migrants suffered from, for example, a restriction of their right to education, unscrupulous abuses and economic exploitation. Regarding the situation of ethnic and religious minorities, another issue raised by speakers, of particular concern was the restriction of the rights of these minorities by States. The rights to freedom of worship, practice and assembly, as well as the rights to educate according to faith convictions and the right to change religion were frequently denied religious minorities, a situation that was frequently compounded by national, ethnic or linguistic discrimination, speakers said.

Speaking in the general debate were the Representatives of: International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (OIDEL); World Federation of Trade Unions; Colombian Commission of Jurists; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Europe-Third World Centre; International Federation of Free Journalists; Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos; International Religious Liberty Association; Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic; Religious; Linguistic & Other Minorities; International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development; International Commission of Jurists (in a joint statement with Landmine Survivors Network); International Humanist and Ethical Union; General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Association for World Education; International Confederation of Free Trade Unions; Permanent Assembly for Human Rights; Society for Threatened Peoples; European Union of Public Relations; and International Indian Treaty Council.

Exercising its right of reply was Sri Lanka.

The Commission will meet at 3 p.m. this afternoon to take action on draft resolutions and decisions tabled under its agenda items on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, and on economic, social and cultural rights.

Action on Resolution on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.14) on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, adopted by a roll-call vote of 46 in favour to none opposed, with four abstentions, the Commission expressed alarm at the spread in many parts of the world of various extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups; expressed deep concern over the fact of the glorification of the Nazi movement, including through erecting monuments and memorials as well as holding public demonstrations in the name of glorification of the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and Neo-Nazism; and stressed that the practices described above do injustice to the memory of the countless victims of crimes against humanity committed in the Second World War, and might be incompatible with the obligations of Members States of the United Nations and its Charter as well as with the goals of the Organization. The Commission also stressed that such practices fuel contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and contribute to the spread and multiplication of various extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups.

The Commission noted with concern the increase in the number of racist incidents in several countries and the rise of skinhead groups, which had been responsible for many of these incidents, as noted by the Special Rapporteur; emphasized the need to take the necessary measures to put an end to the practices described above and called upon States to take more effective measures to combat these phenomena and the extremist movements, which posed a real threat to democratic values; and requested the Special Rapporteur to continue to reflect on this issue and to make relevant recommendations in his report to the Commission at its sixty-second session, and to seek and to take into account in this regard the views of Governments as well as non-governmental organizations.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (46): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, 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 (0)

Abstentions (4): Australia, Canada, Japan and United States.

Absents (2): Eritrea and Mauritania.

LUCY TAMLYN (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of the United States would call for a vote on the draft. The United States shared the repugnance at attempts to glorify or promote Nazi ideology. However, freedom of expression must be protected, and the draft failed to distinguish between statements protected by freedom of expression, and those that incited violence.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union considered that the fight against neo-Nazism, as a fact of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, was a serious challenge requiring action at international, regional and national levels. The Union attached great importance to the fight against the threats posed by extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups. The Union was convinced that all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in today's world should be addressed in the Commission in an adequate and all-inclusive way. Therefore, the Union had participated actively in the consultations on the two draft resolutions traditionally introduced by the African Group and Brazil. The current draft proposal, as amended to avoid selective focus and to address in a more inclusive manner the range of practices fuelling contemporary forms of racism and intolerance, could make a contribution to the Commission's consideration of the issue of neo-Nazism in a more comprehensive way in the future. For that those reasons, the Union would vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in document L.14.

Action on Resolutions on Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.2/Rev.1) on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestine territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 in favour to two opposed, with 12 abstentions, the Commission expressed grave concern about the continuing construction, contrary to international law, by Israel of the wall inside the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and expressed its concern in particular about the route of the wall in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949. It also expressed grave concern at the continuing Israeli settlements and related activities, in violation of international law, including the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, the confiscation and destruction of property, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads; at the new construction plan by the Government of Israel announced on 21 March 2005 for a project of 3,500 additional housing units in Maale Adumim and the planned expansion of two other settlement blocks in the West Bank; and at the continued closures of and within the occupied Palestinian territory and the restriction of the freedom of movement of people and goods.

The Commission called upon Israel to take and implement serious measures, including confiscation of arms and enforcement of criminal sanctions, with the aim of preventing acts of violence by Israeli settlers, and other measures to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians and Palestinian properties in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem; and demanded that Israel, the occupying power, comply fully with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. Moreover, the Commission urged the parties to seize the opportunity offered by the current political context to give renewed impetus to the peace process and to implement fully the Road Map endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1515 (2003), with the aim of reaching a comprehensive political settlement in accordance with the resolutions of the Council.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (39): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Against (2): Australia and United States.

Abstentions (12): Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Togo and United Kingdom.

NAELA GABR (Egypt) speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Arab Group, thanked all co-sponsors of the draft resolution, and the States which had taken an interest in the resolution who had sought a constructive dialogue for a content reflecting the importance of this very grave matter that had an effect on the human rights of the Arab peoples as well as the human rights of all Palestinians. The important message was that the continued settlements were an obstacle to peace, and the Arabs sought peace for all Arabs, Palestinians and the neighbours in Israel. All should support the draft resolution and send a clear message for peace.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking before the vote as a concerned country, urged that the Commission to vote against the resolution as such a resolution would create a disincentive for the Palestinians to move on in implementing the first phase of the Road Map on stopping terrorism, because the resolution was disconnected from the reality on the ground and because it was prejudging the outcome of the future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. A text was recently adopted by a gathering body. That text had condemned a certain State's occupation of territories as well as the building of houses and facilities. It had called for this country to end its occupation and to cease creating facts on the ground by force, and changing the character and the demographic composition. It called for the dismantling of all facilities built on those territories and which were considered as violations of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Delegates must be thinking that this occupying country could only be Israel. But this text was of the Arab League at the last Arab Summit in Algiers regarding the three islands, the Greater Tunb, the Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa.

The text of the current resolution by the Commission recalled the principles on interim self-government arrangements agreed in Oslo in 1993. However, it deliberately failed to mention what had been agreed upon, namely that the issue of the settlements would be left to the Permanent Status negotiations. The resolution, which the Commission was about to vote, singled out a country and had far more to do with political and non-human rights matters than with settlements. By voting in favour of the resolution, the Commission was prolonging its anomalies. He called that the Commission not to vote in favour.

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.

BASHAR JA'AFARI (Syria), speaking as a concerned country, said that foreign occupation was the worst form of violation of human rights, the worst form of racial discrimination, and the worst form of aggression, as attested by United Nations instruments. The Israeli Government wished to contradict those facts, those principles drawn from the Charter of the Organization and other international instruments. Israel had attempted to convince the international community that the principles did not relate to it, and that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and of the Syrian Golan must be accepted as a fact, and even as a good thing. That was the Israeli responses to the many resolutions and messages sent to Israel by the international community over the decades.

The establishment of Israeli settlements constituted a continued declaration of war, and an aggression on human rights instruments, he added. The utter disregard shown by Israel for the relevant resolutions of the Commission over the decades challenged the voice of the most important human rights body in the world. The civilians under occupation had suffered enough from the oppressive Israeli occupation. There had been enough attempts to bypass the demands of the international community. To talk about peace on the one hand, and to aggress that peace on a daily basis on the other hand, was the hallmark of the Israeli Government. At the same time that Arab States had been meeting for the Beirut Summit, Israel had been committing the Jenin massacre. And after the Algeria Summit, the Israeli response had been the building of new settlements around Jerusalem and in the north of the occupied territories to make it impossible to establish a viable Palestinian State. That was Israel's understanding of human rights.

J. BENJAMIN ZAPATA (Honduras), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the draft resolution described part of the story and bias was expressed in the text against one of the parties. It was not balanced, and it seemed that it would not lead to a solution to the problem. The text failed to reflect the origin of the conflict. Honduras understood the sufferings of the peoples. The resolution would not help to resolve the problem nor would it facilitate a means so that both countries resolved their problems in a common accord. For those reasons, Honduras would abstain from voting.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it considered the establishment and maintenance of Israeli settlements and the construction of the barrier to secure them to be contrary to international law and against a permanent and comprehensive settlement to the issue. It had therefore welcomed Israel's withdrawal this year, and this should be supported. Israel had a right to defend its citizens and territory, but violations of human rights that had negative effects were to be deplored, as Canada had always done. Only a negotiated settlement would find peace for the region. There was much in the resolution that Canada could support, however the reference to armed settlers' violence in the absence of any reference to Palestinian violence and to the right of Israel to defend itself from terrorism was not appropriate. Neither should the resolution quote selectively from the decisions of the courts. Canada would therefore abstain this year on the resolution.

RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of the United States objected to the draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, as it had in the past, due to the imbalance of the anti-Israel resolutions. The presence of this item on the Commission's agenda was inappropriate and unfair. The present item dealt solely with one Member State, while all other Member States activities were covered under the subsequent item. It was also grossly unfair that only one of the 191 Member States of the United Nations could not be a member of the Commission on Human Rights and other United Nations panels. The Secretary-General had noted the incongruity and unjustness of the situation, and the necessity to correct it, in a recent speech on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Allied forces in 1945.

The draft lacked any balance, and took no account of and made no reference to events on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians, he said. Only in a revision, made yesterday and only in a negative and begrudging manner, did it refer to the fact that Israel intended soon to withdraw fully from Gaza and from other settlements in the West Bank. This was being done with the encouragement of the United States Government, which would continue its support and involvement in bringing the tragic Middle East conflict to an end. There had been much talk about the credibility of the Commission, he concluded. Imbalanced and unjust resolutions of this type did much to bring that credibility into question. The United States would vote against the resolution, and asked other members of the Commission to join it.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.4) on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 in favour to ten against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission condemned the use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life, vast numbers of injuries and massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure; urged all Member States signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention to express the inadmissibility of the ongoing violation of the rights of Palestinian civilians, especially women and children, stipulated in these instruments, and to demand their effective observance by Israel, the occupying power; requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to address the issue of Palestinian pregnant women giving birth at Israeli checkpoints owing to denial of access by Israel to hospitals; and requested the High Commissioner to demand, in accordance with her mandate, the immediate release of Palestinian detainees, including women, children and the sick, and the investigation of reported cases of torture, harassment or ill-treatment and the bringing to justice of Israeli officers involved in the abuse of detainees.

The Commission also requested Israel, the occupying power, to facilitate the forthcoming Palestinian legislative elections in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and demanded that it refrain from all acts that interfered in, obstructed or impeded these elections; demanded that Israel comply with its legal obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice and as demanded in resolution ES-10/15 and resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, and that it cease the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall; and called for the boycott of firms involved in the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (29): Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (10): Australia, Canada, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (14): Argentina, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation and Ukraine.

NAELA GABR (Egypt), speaking in a general comment, thanked all the countries that had co-sponsored the draft resolution, by which they gave a clear message of the credibility of the Commission and its interest in upholding human rights for all peoples of the world. The Commission was the highest body entrusted with the promotion and protection of human rights, and it was its duty to send a clear and unequivocal message of its interest in protecting the rights of all. The people of Palestine were suffering from the breach of all their rights. One State was standing alone before the peoples of the world: and that was Palestine, whose people were standing alone. The international community should support them, and ensure the enjoyment of all their rights. This would be the first step both for Palestine and for peace building.

The Arab people were looking for peace and were extending an olive branch, but peace required peace and justice as the building blocks. A balanced resolution was based on justice, and international law. This was the position of Egypt, and justice and legitimacy should support Palestine. The ceasing of the practices against the Palestinian people by Israel was required, and there should be a peaceful relationship in the region and respect for the rights of the Palestinians, as this was the building block for peace.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said at the beginning of the session, Israel had had been a dream – a dream that the encouraging developments currently taking place in the Middle East would be reflected accordingly in the Commission. However, in reading the text of L. 4 on which the Commission was about to vote, the Israeli delegation could only express its deep sense of frustration that its dream had not come true. If the intention of the authors of the draft was to bring the parties closer to peace, they had failed. Peace could not be achieved by accusing only one side, when the responsibility lay with both. The resolution was one of four regarding Israel. Could anyone think of another country that had the "privilege" of such special attention? Had the Commission exhausted the list of countries that were gross violators of human rights and had it found that only Israel was left?

The resolution did not even mention the deliberate terrorist attacks and suicide bombings targeting and killing innocent civilians. That was a problem of double standards – "Deux poids et deux measures". It was about time that the Commission rose above its narrow political perspective and recognized that, in any conflict, there were always two sides, that suffering was not the monopoly of either side, and that the resolution of a conflict was not aided by the adoption of biased resolutions. He called on the Commission to reject the resolution in order to help open a window of hope and to create a message of peace that could be sent from the Commission to the peoples of the region.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned party, said the Palestinian people had been suffering from occupation for many decades. Yet it seemed some parties wished to implement human rights everywhere in the world, except in Israel; they wished to force all to accept human rights, except for the Israeli occupying force. He had been heartened to hear the Israeli Representative speaking in Arabic, and he apologized for not knowing Hebrew. However, he wished to reiterate that the two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, had no option but peace -- and not just any peace, but a just peace based on bringing the occupation to an end.

The Israeli Representative had wondered why the Commission continued to take up the present agenda item. To the Israeli Representative, he wished to say, "put an end to the occupation, and no resolution would be tabled on Israeli human rights violations. Instead there would be a resolution full of praise for Israel for ending the illegal occupation and the inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people2. Palestine was also glad to hear the Israeli Representative speak of the treatment of women and children. Palestinian women had had to give birth at Israeli checkpoints, in full view of Israeli soldiers, who were armed to the teeth. They had been deprived of access to hospitals. All women, in all parts of the world, deserved dignified treatment.

The Palestinians had already accepted the presence of Israel on 87 per cent of Palestinian land, he concluded. Israel must leave the Palestinians alone on the remaining 22 per cent. Asking why Israel was attempting to "Judesize" Jerusalem, he said that if the city was to be a joint capital, then it must be open to all. The era of empires had come to an end; Israel was not as strong as the Roman Empire. Peace must be the option, and the occupation must come to an end.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union remained deeply concerned by continued violations of human rights in the occupied territories. Israel's presence and military occupation in the occupied territories, including the illegal presence of Israeli settlers in those territories, had led to repeated human rights violations, and to the killing and injury of civilians. Notwithstanding its right to fight terrorism, Israel bore full responsibility for preventing, investigating and sanctioning such human rights violations.

The European Union reiterated its strong and unequivocal condemnation of all terrorist acts, and welcomed the commitment of both parties, at the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit, to stop all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, military activities and destruction, provocation and incitement, as well as the determination of both parties to work together in a spirit of understanding and cooperation. The Union called on both parties to take rapid steps to fulfil this commitment, and reiterated its attachment to the implementation of both parties obligations under the Road Map, in particular the call to freeze all settlement activities.

The European Union had supported General Assembly resolution 59/124, on which the present draft was based, he noted. However, the present draft differed in important ways from the General Assembly text. It was not balanced and did not sufficiently reflect the current situation. Important encouraging developments had taken place since last autumn. While the European Union could add its voice to the many concerns expressed in the present draft, it would not be able to support it.

RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, recalled the earlier comments by the United States on the imbalance of resolutions condemning Israel, and the incongruity of an entire agenda item being devoted to Israel. Regarding the present draft, he noted that the wording had been moderated from previous years. And colleagues had informed him that the entire atmosphere of this year's Commission was better than previous sessions. However, the draft was still immoderate and unnecessarily unbalanced; the United States' objections therefore continued.

The draft referred to the "recent reports of the Special Rapporteur on human rights", but failed to mention the positive steps that the Special Rapporteur had noted, he added. There was no reflection of the short, but moving, speech made by the Palestinian Representative, who had said "We hold out our hand to our neighbour Israel to live in peace". Nor was there any recognition of the Palestinian Representative's later remarks to the Commission to the effect that Palestine looked forward to living at peace with its neighbour, Israel. Two examples had been given at the time, those of the French and Germans, and the Danes and Swedes, both of which had now lived in peace for many years. It was regrettable that the sponsors of the draft could not hold their fire, and let the parties make progress. Instead, they offered yet another resolution, which did nothing to advance the peace process, and which could even inhibit that process while further eroding the credibility of the Commission. The United States asked its fellow members of the Commission to vote against the draft, and not to allow the work of the Commission to cast a shadow over the Middle East peace process.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Canada had consistently called on Israel to respect the human rights of Palestinians. The draft resolution was disconnected from the reality on the ground, and Canada would vote against the text.

J. BENJAMIN ZAPATA (Honduras), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said for a resolution which was apparently seeking to promote and protect human rights and to foster an atmosphere conducive to peace and settlement of the conflict, some of its contents and language was unbalanced and inappropriate, and seemed to turn a blind eye to what was actually happening in the region. These peace objectives did not seem to be reflected in the draft resolution which included incendiary language, and this type of resolution should not be issued by a body like the Commission. In order to foster human rights, a favourable environment should also be fostered, in which the parties could achieve peace. All those involved should be included. Resolutions were part and parcel of the reform process of the Commission, and it should take its own steps to contribute towards the reform. Honduras would vote against the resolution for these reasons.

LARS PIRA PEREZ (Guatemala), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said he wished to reaffirm support for the Palestinians, who continued to live without peace and security and their right to self-determination. The international community should take advantage of new opportunities for peace in the Middle East, including those arising from the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit. It was the appropriate time to take the Road Map as the basis for continuing negotiations. The work of the Commission should take these opportunities into account, and support the parties' engagement for peace. Thus, it was regrettable that the present text did not reflect the improved situation, and included language that could be detrimental to the peace process. Guatemala would abstain.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.15) on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour to two opposed, with 19 abstentions, the Commission called upon Israel, the occupying power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, in particular resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council, among other things, decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect, and demanded that Israel should rescind forthwith its decision; and called upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasized that the displaced persons of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan must be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their properties.

The Commission further called upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, to release all detained citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and to desist from its repressive measures against them and from all other practices mentioned in the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. The Commission was also determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel that purported to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan were null and void, constituted a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and had no legal effect. Moreover, the Commission decided to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-second session, as a matter of high priority, the item entitled "Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (2): Australia and United States.

Abstentions (19): Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

NAELA GABR (Egypt), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the Arab Group, said the Arab Group wanted rights be restored to those who had been deprived by the Israeli occupation of the Arab territories. The Arab Group had always extended its hands for peace. The Arab Group wanted to see peace restored to the people under the principle of "land for peace". Israel should respect the Road Map, which was intended to bring peace to the region. The Sharm-el-Sheikh Summit was also relevant to the peace process. The speaker said that Israel should stop its human rights violations in the occupied Arab territories and allow the process of peace to continue. The language used in the draft resolution reflected the need for peace in the Middle East.

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) speaking as a concerned country said this draft resolution left the speaker somewhat perplexed, as it seemed to confuse who was the arsonist and who was the fire fighter. Israel had come in possession of the Golan Heights in 1967, after years of aggression from there, which had turned the lives of Israeli citizens into a living hell. Today the Golan Heights had become a centre of peace and vitality. Syria was the main supporter and assistant of the Hizbollah terrorist organization, which worked from Syrian territory, striking against Israel with impunity. Over the past weeks, there had been no change in Syria's harsh language, nor a glimpse of hope. Israel had always expressed its desire to resume negotiations with Syria in order to reach peace in the region.

If there was a topic that spoke poignantly of human dignity, it was the fate of the missing Israelis and their remains. Syria and Lebanon should release information about the missing Israeli soldiers, missing in action 22 years ago, and others. What could be a better humanitarian gesture, a better confidence-building measure, than the repatriation of remains so they could finally rest in peace in Israel? These were humanitarian issues which Syria could contribute towards solving, but it had not done so. The counter-productive resolution would not help with bringing peace to the region that Israel was striving for. Syria should make the decision to contribute to the construction of peace with tangible acts. The sole purpose of the resolution was to perpetuate tension instead of solving it, and all should vote against it.

BASHAR JA'AFARI (Syria), speaking as a concerned country, said the humanitarian situation of the victims of the Israeli occupation must be the issue, not the humanitarian situation of the Israeli occupier. Israelis had come to live in Syrian villages, in the houses of Syrian families, which had been expelled by the occupation. The Israeli occupation had prevented Syrian citizens living under the occupation from exporting or marketing their apple crops outside the Golan. Eighteen Syrian prisoners had been kept in detention for years for refusing Israeli identity and nationality. One prisoner had been sentenced to 27 years for demonstrating against the occupation. The occupation predated the establishment of the Hezbollah party.

Syria continued to fight terrorism, and had joined a number of conventions and instruments to fight terrorism, many more than Israel, he said. Syria fought terrorism much more than Israel, and was much more aware of the prerequisites for peace. In one year, President Assad had presented three separate initiatives for peace, and the Israelis response had been "not possible". There were hundreds of cases of disappeared persons; they were either dead and buried or locked in Israeli prisons, but none knew their whereabouts. All those opposed to the draft resolution denied the fact that justice was necessary for the establishment of peace. The Commission must force Israel to comply with international legitimacy. The international community must bring pressure to bear on Israel to resume the peace process with Syria without prejudice, and to end the occupation of the Syrian Golan.

RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said while the text of the resolution was improved from past years, the United States still found it to be unbalanced. Like the previous two, it also failed to take into account the recent dramatic progress during the last six months in the West Bank and Gaza, and in the Middle East in general. Remarkably, this resolution expressed "grave concern over the halt in the peace process". The reality was that new opportunities to advance the goals of peace and security in the region were occurring almost daily. To achieve this goal, all parties, including the Commission, should break with the past and set out on a new path. The Palestinian Authority and Israel had already taken the first steps down that path. In free and fair elections, the Palestinian people had chosen a new leadership that was committed to ending extremist violence. Israel had committed to disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank and to support the Palestinian Authority's political, economic and security reform efforts. The international community at the London Conference had stepped forward to assist the Palestinian Authority's reform efforts.

The Commission had the responsibility to advance these peace efforts, but regrettably the resolution failed to grasp this opportunity and in fact served to undermine it. Resolutions such as this sought to vilify only one party rather than advance the cause of peace. The United States remained committed to providing the leadership and support needed to resolve this tragic conflict, and would not endorse measures that failed to advance towards that goal.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union regretted that it would not be able to support the current draft. The European Union underlined the need to respect and safeguard the human rights of persons living in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, but felt that the text had needed a stronger focus on the human rights question for the European Union to be able to support it.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said while there were elements of the resolution with which Canada agreed, other unconstructive elements had precluded its support in the past. Changes to this year's text did not ameliorate Canada's traditional concerns with the resolution. Canada recognized that the Golan Heights were occupied territories and did not recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories occupied since 1967. Canada also supported the concept that the peace process should be based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. However, the resolution did not provide the full context or a balanced assessment of the situation in the region. It was for that reason that the Canadian delegation had again abstained on the resolution.

PAOLO BRUNI (Italy), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on behalf of United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands and Hungary, said there was disappointment that the text on Israeli settlements could not have been supported this year as it had been in past years, as concern remained on this topic, and that of the construction of the separation barrier. The resolution did not sufficiently reflect progress on the ground over the last 12 months, and there were two important elements missing: disengagement as a significant step towards implementation of the Road Map, and the commitment of both parties to stop all acts of violence including acts of terror. This was why the five countries had decided to abstain.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Argentina had voted in favour of the draft on Israeli settlements. Argentina emphasized its condemnation of all acts of violence and terrorist acts, and felt that that condemnation should have been properly reflected in the text.

General Debate on Specific Groups and Individuals

CAROLINE MRAZ, of International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education - OIDEL, said that in her 2002 report, the Special Rapporteur on the right to education had underlined that children of migrants were among those who were often deprived of the right to education. According to the Rapporteur, the progressive realization of the right to education should follow three main stages in order to fight against exclusion: rights should be given to those persons traditionally deprived of access to education, such as the indigenous peoples or non-citizens; there should be a fight against segregation in education and for integration; and the teaching methods to the needs of the people concerned should be adapted to. The adapting of education to the needs of the people would respect the cultural identity of the children.

JULIO AVELLE, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said in the process of neo-liberal globalization, countries were advocating free movement of goods, but were placing obstacles in the path of the free movement of people. Migration was due to socio-economic problems, among other things, and neo-liberal globalization was causing such problems as well as expanding despair and poverty. The migratory phenomenon would continue to increase as long as poverty and misery existed in the third world. Unscrupulous abuses perpetrated against migrants were the result of the unregulated market, and could not be allowed to continue. It was essential that international instruments on migrants did not continue to go un-ratified while the excuses perpetuated. Migrant workers should not be treated with discriminatory practices, and there should be decisive work to reverse this trend.

ANDRES SANCHEZ THORIN, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said the United Nations' endorsement of the work of the Special Representative on internally displaced persons (IDPs) was welcomed, and there was no doubt that the Special Representative would contribute to the dissemination of principles for the treatment of IDPs. The guiding framework and principles on internally displaced persons in the Americas continued to require immediate implementation in American States, especially in Colombia. The Government of Colombia had not fulfilled the majority of the recommendations on IDPs, but had taken action against them. The persistence of impunity, and lack of restoration of lands and territory to IDPs characterized the situation. There should be adoption of a mechanism for monitoring and verifying the guiding principles on IDPs in Colombia.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, drew attention to the situation of the people of Western Sahara, who had become a minority in their own land. The people had been forcefully displaced by the Moroccan army and their human rights continued to be violated. Morocco had refused to free the prisoners it was holding since many years. The people of Western Sahara deserved to exercise their right to self-determination. With regard to the Kurdish people, the appointment of a Kurd as President of Iraq would lead to the recognition of the rights of Kurdish people in Iraq. Kurdish people in Iran were living under a climate of terror imposed by the authorities. The conditions of Kurds in Syria had also been deteriorating. In Turkey, 3,000 Kurdish villages had been destroyed.

MALIK OZDEN, of Europe-Third World Centre, said despite its international engagements, the Turkish Government continued its policy of repression against the Kurdish people in Turkey. The recent anti-Kurdish campaign and the intensification of summary executions over the past months in particular with regards to displaced farmers, bore witness to this fact. A recent law adopted by Parliament seemed to be designed mainly to bar their access to justice at the European Court of Human Rights. The Government had implemented none of the recommendations made by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on displaced persons. The Commission should take all measures to ensure that the Government honoured its international obligations and applied these recommendations.

ALGIS TOMAS GENIUSAS, of International Federation of Free Journalists, said that the International Federation had been speaking for peoples and minorities oppressed by totalitarianism since 1942. Last year, 2004 had been the deadliest year for journalists in a decade as 56 journalists had been killed worldwide. The former Soviet Republics had less press freedom today than they had had under the closed years of communism; the Russian Federation had registered a negative category change on the "Freedom in the World" global survey, moving from "partly free" to "not free" in 2004. By contrast, the Baltic States now members of the European Union and NATO, had achieved full freedom in their media, and marked improvement in respect of human rights. Yet the successor State, the Soviet Union, never tired of alleging that Estonia and Latvia discriminated against their Russian-speaking minorities, although no independent observer had ever observed such treatment. Rather than assail the Baltic States with politically motivated, trumped up charges of discrimination, the Russian Federation should pay more attention to improving its own record of human rights, especially in Chechnya and Ingushetia.

LUISA SIRVENT, of Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, said in recent years, Spain had been the destination of many immigrants. According to estimates, over a million immigrants were living in the country in an illegal situation. The measures taken by the State lacked vision with regard to the regularization of the situation of the immigrants. The lack of documentation and identification process had added to the problem of regularization of those who landed in Spain. The massive immigration in regions near to the sea had created further administrative problems in handling the immigrant population. The issue of repatriation had also been difficult because of the lack of documentation. The Government of Spain had now confined immigrants to the Canaries islands. The Government should do all it could to prevent any form of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia against immigrants.

GIANFRANCO ROSSI, of International Religious Liberty Association, said religious minorities appeared to be more and more vulnerable across the world. In particular, since the events of 11 September 2001, in Western countries there was a rise of public Islamophobia. Violent and terrorist Islamism should be fought, but Islam and peaceful Muslims should be respected. But non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries had the same rights, and they should be recognised and respected, for example in Iran where the Baha'i minority was strongly persecuted. Western countries should eliminate their Islamophobia, and Islamic countries should respect non-Muslim minorities and avoid the rise of Islamophobia by giving to the world an image of Islam as a religion that promoted justice, liberty and peace.

PENG VOONG, of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty¸ said he wished to draw attention to a Swedish law, which prohibited expressions of contempt towards favoured minority groups. It required no evidence of incitement to violence, and lacked objective criteria for identifying contempt. Its supporters argued that it would create greater tolerance of distinct national, ethnic and social groups. However, it was really a dangerous mechanism for censorship, which would foster intolerance towards disfavoured minorities. In 2004, a Swedish court had sentenced pastor Ake Green to one month in prison for publishing a sermon that contained contemptuous expressions against homosexuals. Europe had ruled that the verdict was unfounded, but the Swedish Government had refused to accept the decision, and had appealed the case. Sweden's law not only infringed upon Pastor Green's freedom, but also the freedom of all Swedish citizens to speak their conscience. The right to enjoy a freedom could only be as secure as it was for the smallest minority -- the individual. In pluralist societies, few views were shared by all. Often, the only shared value was the belief that all must respect each other's differences.

THACH NGOC THACH, of International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities, said the Khmer Krom people from Cambodia and Khmer Krom Buddhist monks were facing abuses when they visited their homeland in the Mekong Delta. Their minority rights as recognized by the international human rights standards were not respected. Buddhist temples had been and continued to be destroyed. Buddhist monks were imprisoned and assassinated. Religious festivals were banned, and there had been attempts to control the practice of Buddhism. The dignity of Khmer Krom people as human beings was severely degraded. Their children were being victimized by child labour, human trafficking and prostitution, lack of nutrition, lack of medicine and proper education and employment.

NORMA SUSANTI MANALU, of International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, said the tsunami disaster had received wide attention worldwide, but the humanitarian relief taking place had shown its inefficiency, and had failed to be sensitive to the needs of women and children. The military in Aceh had not allowed the humanitarian organizations to deliver aid by themselves, as Aceh was still under emergency status. Women also faced a difficult situation. The excessive role of the Indonesian Army in handling the IDPs and recovery of Aceh post-tsunami led to the limitation of civil society's rights. The Government should open access for civil society organizations to be able to take part in dealing with IDPs in Aceh, and should revoke the military emergency there in order to provide better conditions for Aceh society in its recovery efforts.

KIRSTEN YOUNG, of International Commission of Jurists, in a joint statement with Landmine Survivors Network, said she would like to note the progress made on the draft Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, it was disappointing that many of the Governments working on the draft had not transferred its principles to their treatment of disabled persons nationally. The Commission should request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold a seminar in Geneva on aspects of the Convention that required expertise in human rights and existing human rights procedures and mechanisms. Noting that the progress made was largely due to partnership between the Governments and the community of persons with disabilities, she said that Governments should work with persons of disabilities at the national level. The Convention should also have its own international monitoring function, which could monitor respect for the human rights of persons with disabilities and supervise implementation of structural social development-related changes.

LEONORE REVERDIN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, said every year in India, 15,000 atrocities against Dalits were officially reported, but sadly, the vast majority of cases went unreported because of intimidation and violence against those who dared to complain. Despite the very considerable efforts made by the Government of India to address the problem through legislation and affirmative action programme, deep-rooted attitudes had hardly changed and too little had been achieved. The problem was not legislation but implementation. The laws were quite simply ignored by the higher castes, by those in power, and by the police. Dalits represented 17 per cent of he Indian population. He welcomed the appointment of a Special Rapporteur to prepare a comprehensive study on discrimination based on work or descent. The Indian Government should cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and recognized that the aim of the international community was not to condemn India but to help solve the problem.

JONATHAN GALLAGHER, of General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, said the rights to freedom of worship, practice and assembly, as well as the right to educate according to faith convictions and the right to change religion were frequently denied to religious minorities, a situation that was frequently compounded by national, ethnic or linguistic discrimination. States around the world continued to both actively suppress and indirectly discriminate against religious minorities on the basis of their religious beliefs. There were signatories to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights who completely ignored its provisions and allowed or even sanctioned the killing of men, women and children of minority religions. The Commission should categorically and explicitly condemn all violations and instances of discrimination against religious minorities, upholding the principle of equality in law and practice, and demonstrating thus that any such violations brought the severest response from the international community.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, said an abducted person was ipso facto an enslaved human being. The grave pattern of raiding in Darfur appeared virtually identical to what had taken place in northern Bahr El Ghazal over the past 20 years; the enslavement of Black Africans was one of its characteristics. Governments should be ashamed of propagating the atavistic plague of slavery. After all, those who could not remember the past were condemned to repeat it. It was time to act decisively to end slavery in Sudan.

RAQUEL GONZALES, of International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, said the promotion and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families had to go hand in hand with the promotion of ILO Conventions 97 and 143 that called for equality of opportunity and treatment between migrants and nationals on issue such as access to employment, trade union rights, benefits of collective agreements, tax and social security regulations. Regrettably, the two ILO Conventions still had low ratification rates. Therefore more countries, particularly receiving countries, should ratify the two ILO Convention and the United Nations Convention. In June 2004, the ILO held a general discussion on migrant work. The debates highlighted that all too often migrant workers suffered from exploitative working and living conditions, were subjected to discrimination and earned poverty wages.

PEDRO PARADISO, of Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, said there were violations of human rights for sexual orientation and gender identity in many countries, where lesbian, gay, trans-sexual and inter-sex people were forced to conceal their identities and were subjected to fear, murder and violence. The Commission should affirm and guarantee the principle of the universality of the right to decide on gender and sexual identity, and should condemn the terrible abuses undergone by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and inter-sex people of the world. Equality in terms of equal rights for all and in terms of unfair exclusion from human rights for these people was the case. Segregation arguments were based on the theory of difference. The Commission should work to ensure equal rights for all men and women and to ensure justice was done. Silence was associated with impunity.

KASPAR HALLER, of Society for Threatened Peoples, said that human rights organizations and international experts had noticed an upsurge in discrimination against minorities in the Russian Federation since the start of the second war in Chechnya in the fall of 1999. Xenophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism were the usual forms of that discrimination. Russian writers were using images and motifs found in Nazi anti-Semitic writing to demonize and dehumanise the Chechens today. The chief anti-Semitic stereotype used by these authors was the myth of economic domination of an immeasurably rich national minority, while the most disturbing parallel between anti-Semitic writing of the past and anti-Chechen writings of the present was the reappearance of the idea of "blood libel", the notion that Jews and Chechens practiced ritual murder of outsiders as a part of their nation traditions. The Commission should adopt a resolution condemning the discrimination against minorities, xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism in the Russian Federation, urge the Government to bring the perpetrators of racist acts to justice, and urge the Government to promote tolerance and respect for ethnic minorities and foreigners.

NATIMA MUNSHI, of European Union of Public Relations, said in Pakistan, the State, the Army and the Sunni Muslim clergy dominated the society. In such a situation, the non-Muslim minorities, which constituted just 4.2 per cent of population, were not the only groups made to suffer the inequities of unjust laws. Groups within Islam like the Ahmdeiyas and Shias were also attacked and persecuted as a way of upholding the supremacy of the Sunni clergy. The minority religious groups were deprived of their rights and did not enjoy equal opportunity as the others in the society. They were persecuted and discriminated against by the Sunni clergy, who were actively working to dominate the other religions. In addition, extremists religious groups were destroying minority worship places. They also committed assassinations by throwing bombs at congregations. The non-Muslims were living below the national living standard.

SANTIAGO DELACRUZ ANAPA, of International Indian Treaty Council, said on behalf of the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, the President of Ecuador had betrayed the policies proposed and declared himself as the best ally of the United States against corruption. The fumigations carried out on the border had caused destruction of crops, genetic damage and pollution of rivers, resulting in displacement of persons. The Free Trade Organization of the Americas had made the situation more complex. The rights recognised in the Convention and in ILO Convention 169 had been violated. Indigenous peoples had been victims of attacks on their lives, with the aggressors receiving full impunity. The Government had worked to impose client status on indigenous communities. There was fear for the lives of the leaders, as State terrorism was being practiced, with State corruption the most virulent form of State activity, and with the civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights of all flouted. The Secretary-General should use his good offices with the Government, and the Special Rapporteur on indigenous rights to carry out a mission there urgently.

Right of Reply

SUGEESHWARA GUNARATNA (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement made by the Becket Fund yesterday, said Becket Fund had tried to mislead the Commission by commenting on a "proposed anti-conversion law" which did not exist in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Constitution guaranteed every person freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and further guaranteed freedom of association either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. The Government believed that all groups engaged in relief and humanitarian efforts in Sri Lanka did so purely for humanitarian purposes, and such aid was not conditional nor intended to create religious disharmony.


* *** *

For use of information media; not an official record