COMMISSION HEARS REPORTS OF EXPERTS ON DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, BELARUS, MYANMAR AND TOXIC PRODUCTS

Commission on Human Rights
MORNING
29 March 2005


Concludes Debate on Violation of Human Rights Around the World;
Begins Discussion on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights


The Commission on Human Rights this morning concluded its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, including the question of human rights in Cyprus, after hearing presentations from its Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Belarus and Myanmar. The Commission also started its discussion on economic, social and cultural rights and heard the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the situation of human rights present his report.

Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said the country should abide by international human rights standards, reform laws and practices which were inconsistent with those standards, uphold human rights together with democracy, peace, sustainable development and demilitarisation, respect the rule of law, reform the administration of justice, and ensure that humanitarian assistance, including food aid, reached the target groups.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur’s statement appeared exactly the same as the plot of propaganda fabricated and persistently pursued by hostile forces as part of their psychological warfare to repress the country politically, economically and militarily for the last half century. The hostile forces would not hesitate in fabricating anything with a view to overthrowing the State system of the country.

Adrian Severin, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Belarus, recommended that a programme of public education and public awareness in the field of human rights should be established; technical assistance and any other possible support to Belarusian non-governmental organizations and to democratic political parties should be provided; the organization of an institutionalised national roundtable on human rights in Belarus should be initiated and supported; and an international fund for human rights education in Belarus should be created.

Speaking as a concerned country, Belarus said that it had clearly stated its position with regard to the politically motivated resolution adopted during last year's session. The United States' attempt to exert political pressure on the country had failed, as the international community had defeated the United States' subsequent resolution in the General Assembly’s Third Committee. Under these circumstances, the regret expressed by the Special Rapporteur regarding the impossibility of establishing a dialogue with the Government of Belarus could not but be considered as demagogic and hypocritical. Belarus remained open to cooperation with the United Nations on the basis of universality, non-selectivity and objectivity.

Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, noted that with regard to the exercise of fundamental human rights and freedoms, the situation in Myanmar had not changed substantially. The changes in the country's leadership since October 2004 did not appear to signal any new policy direction in respect of the National Convention process. Reiterating that only a full and unconditional release of all political prisoners would pave the way for national reconciliation and the rule of law, he welcomed the release of some 110 political prisoners among the 19,906 prisoners released from November 2004 to January 2005.

Myanmar, speaking as a concerned country, said Myanmar had all along cooperated with the Commission in a spirit of good will and sincerity. The Special Rapporteur's report contained positive comments and constructive observations, and he had noted some important positive developments in his oral presentation. Myanmar had achieved significant progress in its nation-building tasks, the most remarkable being the peace and stability, which it had attained since its independence.

Also this morning, the Commission started its general debate on economic, social and cultural rights.

Okechukwu Ibeanu, Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, said the unique character of the mandate was that it posed human beings and their rights at the core of the analysis and consideration of phenomena and activities most often considered as subjects of environmental regulation. His preliminary report had focused on presenting the substantive and strategic approach to the mandate entrusted by the Commission.

Turkey spoke as a concerned country in response to the report on a visit carried out by the former Special Rapporteur in March 2004. The visit had enjoyed full cooperation from the Turkish authorities. The Special Rapporteur had grasped the significance of legislative reform undertaken by the Government, and had pointed out the importance of implementing this legislation. While that process of implementation would take some time, the determination to put the new arrangements into practice had not diminished.

The following countries participated in the interaction dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs: Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), Canada, Japan, Russian Federation, China, Cuba, United States, Kenya and Turkey.

The Representatives of the following countries took the floor in the general debate on economic, social and cultural rights: Libya (on behalf of the League of Arab States), Pakistan, Egypt, Mexico (on behalf of GRULAC), Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), Cuba, Congo and India.
At the end of the meeting, Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed her surprise and regret at some of the comments made this morning casting doubt on the integrity of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus.

When the Commission reconvenes at 3 p.m. it will continue its debate on economic, social and cultural rights.

Documents on Question of Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World

Under this agenda item, the Commission has a number of documents.

There is a report on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, submitted by Special Rapporteur Vitit Muntarbhorn (E/CN.4/2005/34). The report notes that various critical challenges need to be addressed in the country; among them, the right to food, the right to life, the right to security of the person, the right to freedom of movement, the right to education and the right to freedom of expression. While there have been some constructive developments in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in recent decades, there have been a variety of discrepancies and transgressions in the implementation of human rights in the country calling for immediate action to prevent abuses and provide redress. Among other things, the Special Rapporteur calls on the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to uphold human rights together with democracy, peace, sustainable development and demilitarization, with greater space for civil society participation at all levels of decision-making and implementation.

There is a report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Adrian Severin (E/CN.4/2005/35) which examines the situation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country as concerns the issue of the death penalty, disappearances, torture, detention, the independence of judges and lawyers, and freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion, as well as political rights. Based on the information gathered, the Special Rapporteur concludes that the continuous deterioration of the situation of human rights is a matter of grave concern. He notes that the wider underlying causes need to be addressed through deep reform of the political system and a restructuring of the society, identifying the authoritarian nature of the regime, the lack of a strong a real civil society and the issue of national identity being major factors. Moreover, the geopolitical context is an element that could influence the potential for transformation and the situation of human rights in the country.

There is also a report from the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (E/CN.4/2005/36) who notes that during the reporting period he was not able to conduct a fact-finding mission to Myanmar. He considers that the pronouncements made and action taken by the current administration do not appear to signal any new policy direction in respect of the National Convention process. He believes that in order to bring about a more sustainable solution to the political deadlock in the country, credible endeavours should be made by all actors to ensure that the National League for Democracy (NLD) and other parties join the National Convention process. Given that a sizeable number of political prisoners still remain in prison, with many of them serving long terms, the Special Rapporteur, while welcoming the recent release by the Government of some such prisoners, stresses yet again that only the full and unconditional release of all political prisoners will pave the way for national reconciliation and the rule of law. He also calls on the Government to look seriously into allegations of violations against citizens living in ethnic minority areas affected by the armed conflict.



And there is the report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (E/CN.4/2005/130), based on the good offices efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General's Special Envoy Razali Ismail. The Secretary-General once again appeals to the Myanmar authorities to resume without delay a substantive political dialogue with the representatives of all ethnic nationality groups and political leaders, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to help achieve a genuine process of national reconciliation. He also reiterates the need for the remaining constraints on all political leaders to be lifted, NLD offices to be allowed to reopen and political prisoners, including elected officials, to be released. Moreover, he urges the authorities to demonstrate their commitment to a credible process of democratization and national reconciliation by allowing his Special Envoy to return to Myanmar to continue his facilitation efforts.

Presentation of Report on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic Republic of Korea

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was party to four key human rights treaties. It had allowed human rights actors from outside to enter the country intermittently to assess the human rights situation there. A variety of United Nations agencies were working there on a number of issues. There had been a warming of relations with a range of countries both in the vicinity and beyond, and the country had also shown a readiness to deal with some bilateral issues linked with its neighbours, while other issues still remained to be resolved. The country already had some legal and operational infrastructures which could help to promote and protect human rights.

Specific challenges included the right to food and the right to life, in the context of the food crisis, as the country still needed humanitarian (emergency) assistance, as there was a shortfall concerning food. Regarding the right to security of the person, humane treatment, non-discrimination and access to justice, there were many reports from a variety of sources concerning alleged transgressions in this field. In the context of the right to freedom of movement and protection of persons linked with displacement, generally the authorities imposed strict controls over the movement of people. For the right to the highest attainable standard of health and the right to education, there were always practical challenges and it was difficult to verify the real scope of coverage. The situation in the country had always been ambivalent. As for the right to self-determination, political participation, access to information, freedom of expression, belief and opinion, association and religion, the very nature of the State impeded various freedoms such as expression, belief and opinion. There were some reports of liberalization of the freedom of religion. In the context of the rights of specific persons and groups, particularly women and children, women and children had become much more vulnerable for a variety of reasons. There was a welcome decline in malnutrition among children, but the rate still remained high.

In retrospect, it was ostensible that while there had been some constructive developments in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in recent decades, there were a variety of discrepancies and transgressions, several of an egregious nature, in the implementation of human rights in the country, which called for immediate action to prevent abuses and to provide redress. Among others, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should abide by international human rights standards, reform laws and practices which were inconsistent with those standards, uphold human rights together with democracy, peace, sustainable development and demilitarisation, respect the rule of law, reform the administration of justice, and ensure that humanitarian assistance, including food aid, reached the target groups. Other members of the international community should influence the Democratic People's Republic of Korea constructively to follow these directions.





Response by Concerned Country

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country, said the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea did not accept the resolution on the country which was adopted at the sixtieth session of the Commission, as well as the Special Rapporteur therein, thus categorically rejecting the resolution in its entirety. The statement just made by Mr. Muntarbhorn appeared exactly the same as the plot of propaganda fabricated and persistently pursued by hostile forces as part of their psychological warfare to repress the country politically, economically and militarily for the last half century. The hostile forces would not hesitate to fabricating anything with a view to overthrowing the state system of the country. Mr. Muntarbhorn's statement as well as his report were intended only to represent that propaganda and therefore were not worth commenting on in terms of human rights. He reiterated the categorical and resolute rejection of Mr. Muntarbhorn's statement and report.

It was indeed a tragedy that the Commission, whose sacred mandate was to ensure the genuine promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world, had now turned to tricky political propaganda that had no relevance to human rights. If the Commission continued to be abused in the hands of those who were intrinsically interested in the unilateralism, power politics, infringement of sovereignty and regime change, the Commission might lose the very reason for its existence, to say nothing of recovering its already-undermined credibility. It was the reality of the Commission which had not mentioned the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians by the United States, and the inhumane crimes of Japan against Koreans such as the abduction of 8.4 million persons , the genocidal massacre of 1 million persons and the military sexual slavery of 200,000 women and girls. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea remained invariable in its position to respond to both sincerity and confrontation correspondingly. The State attached importance to dialogue and cooperation more than anybody.

Interactive Dialogue

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said since the perception of those in power in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea concerning human rights was primarily based upon the protection of national sovereignty and collective rights, how did the Special Rapporteur suggest that a more global approach to human rights could be encouraged. Further, how would the Government be persuaded that the presence of United Nations agencies, humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organizations was an indication of the real interest and concern by the international community for the Korean people. Regarding technical cooperation, were there signals from the Government that this could begin, no matter the form, and if such signals existed, what would be the first step to make.

CHANTAL WALKER (Canada) said there was concern that the Special Rapporteur had not yet been authorised to visit the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the authorities of that country should allow him and all other relevant Special Rapporteurs free and unlimited access to the citizens. There was also concern regarding reports of torture and detainment of returnees; what could the international community do in this respect. Regarding women's rights and the issues of the violation of their rights including trafficking, forced marriage and ethnically-motivated abortions, were there detailed reports of these violations, and were there specific trends in these violations. The Special Rapporteur on violence against women should visit the country, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should encourage this.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said the efforts of the Special Rapporteur were appreciated, especially that he had taken the time to meet the families of the persons who had been abducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was very regrettable that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, against the will of the international community, had not allowed the Special Rapporteur to enter its territory. The violation of human rights in the country should be addressed by the international community as a whole. It was astounding to hear that the Special Rapporteur representing the Commission on Human Rights should be referred to as the delegate for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea just had; that country should accept the entry of the Special Rapporteur at once. As his mission was yet to be accomplished, his mandate should be extended.

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said he looked at his mandate as a window of opportunity for inviting the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to cooperate with the international community. Noting that he had had nothing to do with the resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea adopted last year and that he had never lobbied for his current position, he stressed that he would be happy to enter into the country as an independent observer of the situation. He wished to extend a helping hand to the people of the country, and remained happy to meet national authorities here in Geneva, and elsewhere. That was the constructive approach he wished to adopt.

On the issue of food aid, he noted that food aid had been well provided, but stressed that continued aid remained essential. Coverage for needy groups extended to approximately 80 per cent of the population, but the other 20 per cent needed to be reached. Regarding the debate over beginning longer-term development aid, he stressed that the need for humanitarian and emergency relief remained, and that, as in any situation, the claim to development programming depended on the political situation in the country itself.

Regarding the perception of human rights by those in power, he reiterated their focus on national sovereignty and the survival of the State, and said that one entry point to dialogue could be through the international treaties to which the country already belonged, namely the International Covenants on Civil and Political, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had allowed in two members of Committee on the Rights of the Child last year. In looking for a road map for the future, he advocated that the country should implement the recommendations of the committees that had been constituted under those Conventions

The rule of law could also provide an entry point, he added. The current system needed to be reformed, and this might provide a point for cooperation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Government should also abolish the need for an exit visa and an entry certificate, and should not punish those who attempted to leave. Regarding the refugee situation and human trafficking, he noted that he had talked to women who had been smuggled into Mongolia, and that there was a substantial amount of such activity. He also stressed that such individuals should not be returned to their country of origin. Receiving countries should be given a helping hand, with third countries offering to help if the first country could not maintain the individuals.

Presentation of the Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

ADRIAN SEVERIN, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus, introducing his report, said he had been unable to visit Belarus and to exchange views with the Belarusian authorities. He, instead, had had intensive and extensive discussions with human rights activists and democratic personalities. He had also been unable to fully accomplish his strategy and his plan of work. In order to promote human rights in Belarus, a deep reform of the political system and a dramatic restructuring of the society were needed. He was of the opinion that for the time being, the international disputes around Belarus as well as the geopolitical ambitions relating to these disputes did not have a favourable impact on the promotion of human rights in that country. As long as Belarus was part of a larger geopolitical game, the international community would remain divided when the problem of human rights in Belarus came onto the agenda and the progress of human rights there would remain the hostage of international controversies. The continuous deterioration of the human rights situation in the country was not only a matter of international concern for humanitarian reasons but also a source of legitimate international anxiety for security reasons.

Among his recommendations, Mr. Severin said a programme of public education and public awareness in the field of human rights should be established; technical assistance and any other possible support to Belarusian non-governmental organizations and to democratic political parties should be provided; the organization of an institutionalised national round table on human rights in Belarus should be initiated and supported; an international fund for human rights education in Belarus should be created; an international conference on the human rights situation in that country should be convened; a contact group for the situation of human rights in Belarus should be established and a donors group for raising funds needed in order to support programmes for the development of human rights in that country should be established. The refusal of the Belarus authorities to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur was to be deplored.

Response by Concerned Country

SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus), speaking as a concerned country, said he wished to remind those present that Belarus had clearly stated its position with regard to the politically-motivated resolution adopted during last year's session. The United States' attempt to exert political pressure on the country had failed, as the international community had defeated the United States' subsequent resolution in the General Assembly's Third Committee. Under these circumstances, the regret expressed by the Special Rapporteur regarding the impossibility of establishing dialogue with the Government of Belarus could not but be considered as demagogic and hypocritical. Belarus was a State party to all core international human rights instruments, and fulfilled its obligations in good faith. The country remained open to cooperation with the United Nations on the basis of universality, non-selectivity and objectivity, as it had demonstrated through its submission of a periodic report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in January 2004, among other activities.

Belarus was grateful to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for its efforts to temper the tone of the Special Rapporteur's report, he said. However, the Rapporteur's refusal to follow the expert opinions of Secretariat officials clearly demonstrated the preconceived character of the document produced. The content of the second section of the report was based entirely on a scandalous report by the United States State Department on the situation of human rights in 196 countries, released on 28 February 2005. The Special Rapporteur had also reproduced identically the structure of the United States' report's chapter on Belarus. The Special Rapporteur had completely ignored the question of implementation of economic, social and cultural rights in Belarus, and had asserted in complete ignorance that the country had become a source of international anxiety for security reasons. To the contrary, Belarus had the right to be proud of its contribution to the cause of international security and disarmament, having launched the process of nuclear disarmament in post-Soviet republics.

In addition to proposing that a "dramatic restructuring of the Belarusian society" was needed, the Special Rapporteur's report proposed the creation of an International Fund for Belarus, a permanent round table, the convening of an international conference, and the establishment of a Group of Friends of Human Rights in Belarus, he added. Such constituted not merely insolent interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign State, but also a model of so-called "humanitarian intervention" to be used and applied against other States. The only hint of sincerity in the report came from speculation about external control on Belarus as part of a more complicated geo-political game. Finally, he stressed that the Special Rapporteur's characterization of the country as having an important problem of identity was an unambiguous insult. The forms and methods of work of the Special Rapporteur were strongly protested, and a public apology was demanded of the Special Rapporteur.

Interactive Dialogue

VLADIMIR PARSHIKOV (Russian Federation) said the consideration by the Commission of this subject was being done for purely political reasons, and the author of this dubious initiative had never been guided by the situation in Belarus. The report of the Special Rapporteur was a glaring example of what was being said, as he had exceeded his mandate and certain parts of his report were so absurd that they had nothing to do with international cooperation in the field of human rights and were in direct contradiction of the principles of the United Nations Charter. Regarding his recommendation of the need to change the Government of a sovereign State, one of the co-founders of the United Nations, and that Belarus was a threat to regional stability, these were political falsehoods which should be rejected. The clear hostility of the Special Rapporteur was evident. The report's reference to the Russian Federation was not accidental, as he had not been given permission to visit. This was an inadequate and inadmissible report, as it was being introduced at a time when the authorities were trying to develop communications with the United Nations mechanisms on human rights as well as other organs. The methods of the Special Rapporteur were unacceptable and the results unsatisfactory, and this would lead other members of the Commission to assess it to the damage of the Commission.

XIA JINGGE (China) said since the Special Rapporteur had not visited Belarus, and since his report cited a large number of names, what sources did he receive his information from, and had he checked their reliability, and if so, how. In his conclusions, the Special Rapporteur claimed that Belarus was a closed and controlled country, that was close to dictatorship, and as a nation it had an important problem of identity. Belarus was in fact an ancient civilisation. Human rights violations could take place in any country, including in self-proclaimed human rights champions, where violations were far worse. The Special Rapporteur appeared to have reached his conclusions based on a few reports of human rights violations, and had gone on to make an arbitrary and politicised judgement, showing the double-standards and running against the principles of objectivity of the Commission.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the report was relatively easy to understand, as it was very similar to the United States' State Department report. There were serious doubts on the objectivity and independence of the Special Rapporteur. The report was an insult for the national identity of a State Member of the United Nations. The Special Rapporteur had acted as a political activist, and it was understood why item 9 had therefore deteriorated to this point. Several members of the Cuban delegation had recently been in Minsk, and did not recognise the country in the report. Did the Special Rapporteur see anything positive in the country at all, as the experience of the Cuban delegation was very different. Value judgements that were made here about the character and nature of the Head of State of Belarus were utterly unacceptable. The Special Rapporteur had gone way beyond his mandate and had acted as a political agitator. He should apologise, as Belarus had requested.

AMY MCKEE (United States) said the implementation of the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur were supported. The concerns about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Belarus were shared, as were the concerns over specific issues, and these had also been raised by the United States in various United Nations organs and committees. Some of the specific concerns raised were shared. There was particular interest in the suggestion of launching an International Group of Friends for aiding the situation of human rights in Belarus, and various suggestions could be made for the tasks for this group. The Government of Belarus was unwilling to take positive steps forward, and suggestions for enticing the Government to cooperate with the international community were requested.

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg) noted that despite the lack of cooperation from the Government of Belarus, the Special Rapporteur had stressed that his mandate should continue, and asked how he imagined the future of his task, and what would be its future goals. Regarding the recommendations made in the Special Rapporteur's report, the Special Rapporteur was asked which were of highest priority, and which would have the most significant impact on the situation.

CHANTAL WALKER (Canada) said her delegation wished the Special Rapporteur to expand upon the relationship between national identity and human rights, and how minorities, who did not fit into an emerging national identity, might be protected against discrimination. Moreover, as he had noted that existing sanctions should not be lifted, but should be gradually reduced and replaced by positive actions upon attainment of specific benchmarks for respect for human rights, what did the Special Rapporteur feel was the most important specific benchmark for the country to achieve?

PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) said the present report sounded more like one presented to the Security Council than to the Commission on Human Rights. A more technical, balanced and impartial report reflecting the need to strengthen national institutions with a view to strengthening human rights in the country had been expected. Also noting the Government's stated willingness to cooperate with mechanisms to improve the protection and promotion of human rights in the country, he urged the approach taken to be more constructive in order to improve conditions for the population on the ground. Therefore, what did the Special Rapporteur see as the way forward to improve the situation, to encourage cooperation between him and the Government, and to avoid condemnation in the future?

ADRIAN SEVERIN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, said he could not accept the suggestions that he was biased in his reporting on the situation in Belarus; he was neural and impartial. It was a pure coincidence that some of the contents in his report and that of the State Department's annual report on human rights of Belarus had similarities. In his report, he had also mentioned positive elements, however, the positive ones were so few that the negative ones overshadowed them. Had his visit to the country been accepted, he would have observed much more positive aspects. Unfortunately, he was not able to visit the country because of the refusal of the authorities to receive him. The information of allegations of human rights violations which he had obtained from individuals had been crosschecked by other sources. It was dramatic that there were realities that did not reflect a positive human rights situation in the country, such as imprisonment without charge. A number of non-governmental organizations had been closed and their activities halted.

Although Belarus defended its cultural identity, it should be done within the context of respect for human rights. He did not contest the cultural structure of the country; instead he had expressed his respect for it. His report was in no way motivated politically. The priority was the freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary. The right to freedom of movement should also be respected. The respect for human rights was more significant than national dignity. The international community should continue its defence of human rights in Belarus.

Statement by High Commissioner for Human Rights

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding at the end of the meeting to comments which she said were made by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus on the technical help provided by her Office to the Special Rapporteur, said her Office provided technical facilities to 42 special mechanisms and it had to rely on the resources provided to it by the Commission on Human Rights. As the Commission was aware, the Programme Budget Implications read out when resolutions were adopted provided for the equivalent of three months salary per mandate only. Despite this, desk officers who were often required to assist mandates were doing whatever they could to respond to requests by Special Rapporteurs. She regretted any shortcomings in the assistance actually provided to any individual Special Rapporteur. However, she rejected the suggestion that such shortcomings were caused by lack of professionalism or loyalty to the Special Rapporteur's mission.

Mrs. Arbour said staff members assigned to assist Special Procedures of the Commission gave advice to and took instructions from the mandate holders. On the substance, they gave advice in a professional manner, and in the best interest of the discharge of the mandate as articulated by the Commission. Having said that, she expressed her surprise and regret at some of the comments made this morning casting doubt on the integrity of the Special Rapporteur

Presentation of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, noted that with regard to the exercise of fundamental human rights and freedoms, the situation in Myanmar had not changed substantially. His work remained constrained by lack of cooperation from the Government of Myanmar; neither he nor the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General had been allowed to visit the country in the past year. Furthermore, changes in the country's leadership since October 2004 did not appear to signal any new policy direction in respect of the National Convention process. The Convention had been reconvened on 17 February 2005 with the same composition and same operating procedures as the previous session, held from 17 May to 9 July 2004. Adjustments should be made to transform the body into a genuine forum for achieving national reconciliation and political transition, with participation of key representatives from all legitimate organizations. The National League for Democracy (NLD) and other parties should be included in the process.

Reiterating that only a full and unconditional release of all political prisoners would pave the way for national reconciliation and the rule of law, he welcomed the release of some 110 political prisoners among the 19,906 prisoners released from November 2004 to January 2005. The practices of imprisoning people for speaking their minds, and subjecting them to unfair trials without legal assistance or due process, must also be ended in order to launch a process of genuine transition towards democratization. A number of recent cases of arrest, trial and imprisonment for peaceful political activity and the exercise of fundamental civil and political rights and freedoms had been brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur, and the Secretary-General of the NLD, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, remained under de facto house arrest. Furthermore, the restoration of freedom for political parties and ceasefire partners to operate and pursue peaceful activity remained a further prerequisite for a credible process of national reconciliation and political transition.

Other continuing causes for concern included allegations of human rights violations in ethnic minority areas, he said, particularly those affected by counter-insurgency operations, and the presence of large contingents of the armed forces in ceasefire areas. For example, in northwestern Rakhine state, mosques continued to be demolished and the freedom of movement of the Bengali-speaking Muslim minority remained excessively restricted. The vast majority of that minority remained de facto stateless. The Government should establish efficient mechanisms to hold army personnel accountable for alleged human rights violations. Such allegations must be investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable and must be prosecuted. Unfortunately, the Government had failed to agree to most of the initiatives proposed by the Special Rapporteur on the issue of accountability.

The United Nations and international community should deal consistently with human rights violations, he added. There must not be one set of standards or requirements for State agents and another for armed groups. Moreover, all States should place serious emphasis on holding a continuous dialogue and negotiations with the Government of Myanmar. There was a pressing need to embark on a process of structured consultations on substantial policy issues, and the normalization of political life would proceed more rapidly if bolder steps were taken with the assistance of the international community and multilateral organizations. Finally, as the State apparatus would not just disappear after the political transition was completed, the international community should not wait for the end of that transformation to cooperate on initiatives aimed at improving the lives of vulnerable persons in Myanmar.

Response from Concerned Country

U NYUNT MAUNG SHEIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, said Myanmar had all along cooperated with the Commission in a spirit of good will and sincerity. The Special Rapporteur’s report was a reflection of his professionalism. His report contained positive comments and constructive observations, and he had noted some important positive developments in his oral presentation. Regarding the actual situation on the ground, the reconvening of the National Convention represented a significant step forward in the country's seven-stage road map to democracy. The legislative portion of the Constitution would be formally endorsed during the current session and the remaining pillars of the Constitution, namely the Judiciary and the Executive portions, were under deliberation. Regarding the inclusiveness of the National Convention, the NLD had been invited, but it had boycotted the Convention at the last moment. Regarding the people living in the northwestern part of Rakhine State, Myanmar was in full cooperation with the High Commissioner for Refugees concerning efforts to reintegrate the returnees into the mainstream of the community. These returnees, who could not speak or understand the Myanmar language, needed sufficient time for reintegration into the community. In Myanmar, there was no discrimination based on religion.

The cornerstone of the national policy of the Government was based on the fundamental principles of non-disintegration of the Union, non-disintegration of the national solidarity, and perpetuation of sovereignty. Action would be taken against activities detrimental to these principles. Myanmar had achieved significant progress in its nation-building tasks, the most remarkable being the peace and stability which it had attained since its independence, and with which it could concentrate its attention on other areas of national development including the right to education, the right to economic development, and the right to enjoy social services. It was hoped that the resolution on Myanmar would clearly reflect the positive developments that had taken place in the country.

Interactive Dialogue

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar had not had access to the country, and asked if there was a way for him to gain access. What would be the priority of the Special Rapporteur to ensure that he had access to the country so that he could do his job? What suggestions did the Special Rapporteur have on the participation of international observers in the elections in Myanmar?

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said he had always maintained contacts with the representatives of the Government of Myanmar, and the dialogue about the possibility of his revisiting the country continued. In his opinion, countries lost out by not allowing the Special Rapporteur mandated to them to visit, as the international community was not properly informed of the situation in the country. The interruption in his visits to the country had disrupted his follow-up work from previous visits.

In the future, he would continue his current methods of work, making contact with various Government, opposition and civil society representatives. Regarding elections, he stressed that he could not predict the future, but noted that it was always best to have international observers present for elections. It was to be hoped that, with the new Constitution, the Government would be able to move forward on achievement of fundamental and democratic rights and freedoms. However, at present, the situation remained far from that moment.

He also expressed the hope that Myanmar's delegation to the Commission on Human Rights would transfer his renewed request to visit that country to its Government. Preventing him from visiting the country weakened the special mechanisms of the Commission, as well as the Commission itself.

Documents on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Under its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission has before it several documents.

There is the report of the Secretary-General on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria (E/CN.4/2005/38) which summarizes contributions received from States, United Nations organizations and non-governmental organizations on the steps they have taken to improve access to medication in the context of these pandemics.

There is also the report of the Secretary-General on the realization of all countries of economic, social and cultural rights (E/CN.4/2005/39) which highlights the activities and developments within the international human rights system of most relevance to the promotion of these rights. Among other things, it provides a description of the recent initiatives undertaken by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, outside of the framework of examining States' reports on compliance with the International Covenant. It also lists the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights relevant to these issues.

There is the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities (E/CN.4/2005/40). The report contains summaries of the replies from Cuba, the United Nations Children's Fund and several non-governmental organizations.

There is the report of the High Commissioner which is an analytical study on the fundamental principle of participation and its application in the context of globalization (E/CN.4/2005/41). It considers the relevance to globalization of the enjoyment of the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs and related rights and suggests ways in which that right can be promoted within the context of globalization. It also considers the promotion of participatory rights in national-level policy-making as its relates to globalization; considers the capacity of States to respect the will of people, expressed through the enjoyment of participatory rights, in decision-making processes in global institutions; and examines the increasing role of individuals and groups – through civil society organizations – to take part in policy discussion and decision-making at the global level. Finally, the report makes a series of proposals.

There is the report of the former Special Rapporteur on the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights on her mission to Turkey in March 2004 (E/CN.4/2005/44). The Special Rapporteur notes with concern the different attempts at illegal transfers of waste and dangerous products to Turkey and makes a number of recommendations to the Government on the issue of ship dismantling, among other things, and urges that studies be conducted to determine the risks and illnesses to which workers in the sector are exposed and ways of preventing them.

There is also the report of the current Special Rapporteur on the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, Okechukwu Ibeanu, (E/CN.4/2005/45), which provides an overview of the history of the mandate and refers to previous reports submitted to the Commission. The report outlines the scope of the mandate entrusted to the Special Rapporteur by the Commission and describes the relevant legal developments since the submission of the Rapporteur's report to the sixtieth session of the Commission. He encourages Governments to continue to respond to his requests for comments on the allegations brought to his attention; to respond positively to requests for invitations to in-site visits; and to consider ratifying the range of multilateral and regional environmental instruments relevant to his mandate and ensure their effective implementation.

The addendum to this report (Add.1) contains updates on previously reported cases from India, Mexico, United Kingdom/Turkey, Canada, United States/China, India, Pakistan, and the Netherlands/China/Haiti.

There is also a document which contains the written submission by the World Health Organization (E/CN.4/2005/63), which provides an overview of its work in economic, social and cultural rights. It notes that WHO is actively working to increase awareness and understanding of the scope, content and application of the right to health and is also undertaking a global study to assess the extent that the right to health has been enshrined in national constitutions and other legislative frameworks.

There is also a note by the Secretariat of the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2005/131) which contains the "Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security" as prepared by the Council of the Food and Agricultural Organization in November 2004.

Presentation of Report by Special Rapporteur on the Adverse Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights

OKECHUKWU IBEANU, Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, said his preliminary report contained updates of cases contained in previous reports. It focused on presenting the substantive and strategic approach to the mandate entrusted by the Commission. It did not contain a new independent analysis of issues related to the mandate. The unique character of the mandate was that it posed human beings and their rights at the core of the analysis and consideration of phenomena and activities most often considered as subjects of environmental regulation. The value-added of the mandate arose from its human rights focus, i.e. from the attention devoted to the link between the movement and dumping of dangerous products and wastes and their potential or real negative effects on the enjoyment of human rights, and on how an human rights approach could ensure effective redress for any harm occurring as a result of such movements.

Keeping human rights at the centre of the work, the Commission would be provided with an in-depth analysis of selected thematic issues. In deciding which to focus on, factors would be considered such as the extent or gravity of the real or potential human rights violations, or, among other things, whether an analysis from the perspective of victims of human rights violations could add impetus to ongoing efforts towards multilateral regulation to address the particular issues. Credible information received directly from communities or individuals would be heavily relied on when identifying the thematic issues and also to follow-up allegations of violations with Governments and others implicated in the alleged violations.

Based on the criteria of relevance and value-added, the thematic issues which would be the focus of the next report were still under consideration. High on the list considered was the devastating effects of illicit transfers of pesticides, as the effects on the lives of individuals and communities of such illicit transfers were devastating and often violated a wide range of both substantive and procedural human rights. Another issue under exploration was that of the illicit transfer of end-of-life or near-obsolete products to developing countries, as these, while not necessarily illegal, could have adverse effects on the human rights of individuals and communities in the recipient countries. Information continued to be received about the effect on human rights of activities of transnational corporations, particularly in the extractive sector, operating in developing countries. Such information would be carefully studied and followed up when an intervention was considered warranted.

Response of Concerned Country

TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey), speaking as a concerned country, noted that the former Special Rapporteur had paid a visit to his country last March, and had enjoyed full cooperation from Turkish authorities, as noted in her report. The Special Rapporteur had grasped the significance of legislative reform undertaken by the Government, and had pointed out the importance of implementing this legislation. While that process of implementation would take some time, the determination to put the new arrangements into practice had not diminished.

The Special Rapporteur's approach, which emphasized international cooperation in meeting the big challenges faced by all regarding the phenomenon of illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products, was appreciated, he added. As a transit country, Turkey was exposed to a regrettably high risk of being targeted for dumping and illegal trafficking in such materials. Domestic efforts to counter that threat would not be effective unless there was growing awareness and responsibility among all members of the international community.

In respect of three specific cases, he noted that progress had been made to resolve the issue of the Ulla Case, thanks for the cooperative and responsible approach adopted by the Spanish Government and the Lafarge Company. The hazardous wastes in the sunken ship would be shipped back to Spain. As for the Sea Beirut case, the asbestos in the ship had been transferred to Germany for disposal. However, no solution had been found to the issue of 367 barrels of toxic waste, as the Italian authorities continued to reject their return to Italy. The country of origin should assume its responsibility to ensure the repatriation of the waste, as underlined by the Special Rapporteur.

Interactive Dialogue

CLAUDIA PEREZ ALVAREZ (Cuba) said the explanation of the mandate was very interesting with regards to the development of the mandate by the previous Special Rapporteur. The development of the thematic focus to the reports was welcomed, but the Special Rapporteur should maintain follow-up with those who had communicated with him regarding violations of human rights in this context. Note was taken of the intention to maintain arrangements under multilateral arrangements, but the Special Rapporteur needed to follow these up too. He should study in further depth the role of transnational corporations and how norms were their responsibilities in terms of the impact on a healthy environment.

OKECHUKWU IBEANU, Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, said the very important aspect of his mandate was to note and deal with deficiency in existing mechanisms without duplicating the work of others. In his report he encouraged Governments to refer to allegations and to clarify situations. His task consisted of working with all groups.

General Debate on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

HUSNYA MARKUS (Libya), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, stressed that 2005 would be a fundamental year to achievement of the development goals set by the international community, including for the reduction by half of the number of individuals living in poverty by the 2015. The United Nations continued to seek to provide the basic necessities to the world's poor, particularly in the areas of food, health, housing and education, but three-fourths of the world's population continued to live on the edge of absolute poverty. This provided a damning condemnation of the neo-liberal economic order.

The Secretary-General had recently submitted a report to the General Assembly on steps to take to achieve the development goals related to the halving of poverty and the elimination of certain diseases, she noted, stressing that if these were achieved, the political, economic, and social background that prevailed would be highly favourable to international peace and security. To that end, developed countries must help to reduce poor countries' burden of foreign debt, and to enhance respect for economic, social and cultural rights. Although globalization had become an unavoidable fact with some positive impacts, its human face had yet to be seen. It was time for the developed countries to address and alleviate the fears of the developing countries, and to provide assistance and cooperation, including for implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. The reality of life for poor countries, was that enjoyment of civil and political rights would have little meaning if economic, social and cultural rights were not also realized.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said economic, social and cultural rights were being moved to the centre of the global agenda. Sometimes in the arcane discussions, there was forgetfulness of what economic, social and cultural rights were: these rights included human rights to work; to an adequate standard of living, which included food, clothing, shelter and health; and the right to education. What was needed to be done, individually and collectively, at the national, regional and international levels, was clear: the Millennium Development Goals were time-bound and quantified targets to address extreme poverty in all its dimensions, and by pursuing them, protection of basic human rights to health, education and security would be ensured. By moving on this front, the frontiers between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights would be blurred.

The developed countries should respond to the call of the Secretary-General to establish a time table to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of GDP as official development assistance, and should do so not as an act of altruism or charity, but out of an obligation to stem the consequence of poverty and social underdevelopment, including terrorism, transnational crime, and strife in many countries and regions. If the international community did not make more resolute efforts, even the first and foremost goal of halving poverty by 2015 would not be achieved. More and more decisions affecting people locally were being taken globally, yet democracy remained essentially national, and decision-making structures at the global level had not always adopted an adequate pace. These developments had highlighted the need for reform including through the promotion of participatory rights in global decision-making.

ALAA W. ROUSHDY (Egypt) said his country's Constitution guaranteed economic, social and cultural rights without any distinction with regard to race, colour or nationality. The Government of Egypt was able to provide basic health care services and education to all of its citizens. Many efforts had been made to strengthen the structures providing basic social services by creating means of access by all people. All Government policies were aimed at raising the living standard of the population to ensure that people enjoyed an adequate standard. For a very long time, the international community had upheld civil and political rights while ignoring the economic, social and cultural rights. If human rights were whole and indivisible, why did some countries divide those rights into different categories? All countries should be able to fulfil their obligations by implementing all rights under enshrined under various human rights instruments. The gradual implementing of the rights should be continued in the developing countries. The international community, particularly the developed nations, should assist the developing counties in their efforts in implementing economic, social and cultural rights. The lack of resources might not allow the developing countries to fully implement their obligations.

Egypt supported all initiatives in the implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights. That was why it was actively participating in the elaboration of the additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The burden of external debt and the restriction of the intellectual property requirements had heavily impacted on the economic development of the developing countries. The international community should give a further thought to the issue.

LUIS JAVIER CAMPUZANO (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, said that economic, social and cultural rights maintained high importance regionally for the members of GRULAC. GRULAC favoured the drafting of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in order to remedy the historic imbalance in the treatment of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. Such an optional protocol would help to stress the indivisibility and universality of all human rights. GRULAC also favoured the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights, and noted that violation of these rights tended to happen simultaneously. Unemployment, low salaries, illiteracy, malnutrition, disease without healthcare, low life expectancy, and inadequate housing, affected poor families simultaneously, and were compounded by successive generations of human rights violations, which maintained the vicious circle of poverty. Moreover, given the interdependence of all human rights, poverty often led to weakened institutions and denial of civil liberties.

A holistic approach, which emphasized the importance of all human rights, must be adopted, he stressed. Strategies and mechanisms for achievement of the enjoyment of human rights must incorporate processes to spread well-being all around. GRULAC remained of the view that the broad proclamation of human rights by an instrument such as an optional protocol could help to underscore the complementarity of all rights, without hierarchy. It might also lead to the establishment of a mechanism to assist national authorities in earmarking public funds and resources to ensure realization of economic, social and cultural rights. An optional protocol would complement, rather than duplicate, other instruments, which aimed to safeguard specific rights and protect specific groups, and fill gaps in the existing protection framework.

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said efforts towards the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights were part of the more general action for the promotion and protection of human rights. All human rights were universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and hence equal importance should be given to civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. States should ensure, in accordance with their international human rights obligations, that all individuals, including human rights defenders, were accorded due protection under the law and that due process was guaranteed in all legal proceedings. They should also ensure non-discriminatory access to legal procedures and mechanisms for all, so that individuals could assert their human rights and other rights under national and municipal law, and thereby better exercise their economic, social and cultural rights.

Good governance was fundamental to ensuring sustained economic growth, the eradication of poverty and the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. It was exemplified, in particular, by sound economic policies, solid democratic institutions, respect for the rule of law and a transparent decision-making process that was responsive to the needs of the people. Poverty eradication and the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights were interrelated goals. States should take all appropriate measures to promote and protect the right to adequate food as well as providing access to clean drinking water; human rights standards were an essential part of any food security strategy. Education, including human rights education, played a vital role in poverty eradication, preventing conflict and violence, fighting discrimination and promoting gender equality, and contributed to the enjoyment of all other human rights. States should take all measures, including legal measures, to eliminate obstacles to the realisation of the right to education.

CLAUDIA PEREZ ALVAREZ (Cuba) said without food and drinking water, without the freedom provided by the ability to read and write, without the guarantee of accessing a job and social security, without enjoying medical assistance and enduring the hardships of poverty, a human being could not fully participate in the political life of a society and understand and act upon the complex problems which characterized today's world. The unjust economic order prevailing in the world fostered a silent and chronic economic, social and ecological genocide, which jeopardized the survival of millions of peoples. The lives and right to development of millions of human beings who lived on the planet were threatened by plans of hegemonic domination of the only superpower, which increased its military superiority, threatened and attacked those who posed an obstacle to their impartial plans. Seven in every 10 Cubans had grown up under the history's longest genocide economic, commercial and financial blockade, whose direct damages exceeded the figure of $ 79.3 billion in addition to another $ 54 billion in losses as a result of sabotages and other terrorist acts carried out against the Cuban people, with the support or conspiratorial tolerance of the US authorities.

The United States' Government sought to destroy – by any means – the political, economic, and social system established by Cubans, so as to snatch the ownership of their housing units, factories and land, in order to secure their transnationals companies the control over the Cuban economy and privatise education, health care and social security, thus removing the current guarantees of universal access. The truth was that no one in Cuba wanted that opprobrious future. The attempts by the United States to annihilate the freedom, social justice and equality project chosen by the Cuban people had not been successful, nor would they ever be in front of the dignity and steadfast resistance of men, women and children in Cuba, convinced and determined to lay down their own lives in defence of their revolution.

ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo) said his delegation had participated enthusiastically in all work related to economic, social and cultural rights, and noted with interest the reports produced by the special procedures charged with mandates related to specific economic, social and cultural rights. International human rights law must protect all human rights in order to ensure each individual's right to lead a full, safe and healthy life in liberty and security. The right to live in dignity could only be met if all individuals benefited from conditions of sufficiency and equality in the areas of work, food, housing, healthcare, education and culture.

The growing interdependence wrought by globalization had made it necessary to adopt consistent global policies at the national level, he noted. The actions of each State impacted upon others. While it was difficult to share in all the conclusions and recommendations included in the reports produced by the special procedures, Congo maintained the importance of supporting their work. The international community should dedicate sufficient means to correcting and redressing the inequalities that affected enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by everyone as an example of international solidarity to offer prospects to those rendered less fortunate for reasons related to history or geography.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights was indispensable to the dignity of man. The international community should therefore treat them in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. Experience had taught that economic, social and cultural rights could best be pursued only in open, free and democratic societies, where Government policies mirrored the will and aspirations of the people. The whole purpose of democratic Government was to eliminate poverty and give to every citizen the opportunity to be educated, to learn a skill and to be gainfully employed. It was a sacred duty of the Government to empower the poor and eliminate the scourge of poverty.

The practical realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, of course, depended on the stage of development of a country. In this context it was unfortunate that the debate over the role of the international community in the progressive realisation of these rights should continue after so many years. The success in the progressive realisation of these rights at the national level depended to a large extent on effective international cooperation. Requisite resources to developing countries and the creation of a conducive international economic environment for the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights of citizens was therefore a joint responsibility. The international trade regime should create possibilities for human development, and provide developing countries with policy flexibility to make institutional and other innovations. The absence of a precise standard for progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights made monitoring of compliance at the international level virtually impossible, and this was why this aspect of these rights was best handled in the framework of the legal and judicial system of each country. Only when a certain measure of global development homogeneity was reached would it be meaningful to seriously embark on an international protocol on a complaints mechanism.



CORRIGENDA

In press release HR/CN/05/19 of 23 March, the joint statement by the International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Arab Lawyers Union on page 14 should read as follows:

HANAN SHARAFEDDIN, of International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, speaking in a joint statement with Arab Lawyers Union, said it was not violence or terrorism that created occupation, it was the occupation which produced violence and terrorism. Nor was it the Israelis who needed a partner for peace, it was the Palestinians who needed such a partner. The Palestinian people suffered war crimes and the most serious human rights violations as a result of a systematic State policy of Israel on every Palestinian territory. The Arabs and the Palestinians had accepted the decisions of the international community, offered peace in their summits, a peace based on international legality and international law principles. Their good faith had always been faced by more Israeli aggressions. The Palestinian people today were vulnerable more than ever and needed help. All should work together to help them recover their most basic and legitimate rights.

In press release HR/CN/05/20 of 23 March, the statement by Turkey on page 9 should read as follows:

TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey) said the settlement of the Cyprus problem would have improved the situation of human rights in the island. However, the historic opportunity was missed when the Secretary-General's Plan was rejected by the Greek Cypriot side in the simultaneous referenda of May 2004. Referring to the report of the Secretary-General's, he said since the restrictions and embargo by the Greek Cypriots in various fields, such as the right to free trade and travel, were continuing, efforts to rectify this situation by many parties, including the European Union, were still impeded by the Greek Cypriot side. He said the report of the Secretary-General made reference that the outcome of the referenda had resulted in a stalemate and that neither of the parties had made a proposal to resolve the impasse which was rather puzzling since this remark should have been addressed exclusively to the Greek Cypriot side, which had overwhelmingly rejected the UNSG's plan. The report also argued that freedom of movement had also been facilitated by Greek Cypriot willingness to accept entry to the south by European Union nationals and Cyprus visa holders who entered the island through ports in the North. The term "willingness" was incorrect. It should be noted that the crossing of EU nationals from north to south did not result from the willingness of the Greek Cypriot side to facilitate such crossings, but it was imperative under the EU acquis. All the issues in the report, would have been resolved if the Secretary-General's plan had not been rejected, he added.

In press release HR/CN/05/22 of 24 March, the right of reply of Turkey on page 8 should read as follows:

MUSTAFA LAKADAMYALI (Turkey), speaking in a right of reply, informed the Commission of the United Nations Secretary-General's reply to the letter of the Greek Cypriot leader, which had been referred to by the "Greek Cypriot Representative". The Secretary-General's reply was as follows: "As you will have inferred from my report, I take a different view from you on most of the ground covered in your letter and its annex. I do stand fully by my report, including the narrative and the analysis contained therein, the appeals I have formulated and the recommendations I have put forward, to which I hope the Greek Cypriot side will respond positively. It follows that I do not share your characterization of the conduct of the efforts of the United Nations".

In the same press release, the Representative of Cyprus who spoke in a right of reply on page 8 was misidentified. His correct name is James Droushiotis.