COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS MEASURES ON SITUATIONS IN CUBA, BELARUS, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO AND BURUNDI

Commission on Human Rights
59th session
17 April 2003
Afternoon


The Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions this afternoon on situations of human rights in Cuba, Belarus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi.

The texts were tabled under the Commission's agenda item on the "question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world".
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba, adopted by a roll-call vote of 24 in favour and 20 against, with 9 abstentions, the Commission expressed satisfaction with the appointment of Christine Chanet as Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Cuba, called for the implementation of Commission resolution 2002/18 on Cuba; and urged the Government of Cuba to receive the Personal Representative and to provide all the facilities necessary for her to fulfil her mandate.

Debate on the measure lasted one and one-half hours, much of it taken up with discussion of two proposed amendments, both subsequently defeated on roll-call votes. The first, tabled by Costa Rica and rejected by a ballot of 15 in favour and 31 opposed, with 7 abstentions, would have expressed concern over the recent detention, prosecution and quick sentencing of numerous members of the political opposition in Cuba. The second, proposed by Cuba and defeated by a vote of 17 in favour and 26 opposed, with 10 abstentions, would have called for an end to the economic embargo imposed against Cuba by the United States.
Cuba termed the resolution a gross manoeuvre, completely discredited and immoral, whose sole objective was to concoct pretexts to justify the genocidal blockade and the policy of aggression that the US Government had practiced against Cuba for more than 40 years.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus, adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour and 14 against, with 16 abstentions, the Commission urged the Government of Belarus, among other things, to ensure that all necessary measures were taken to investigate fully and impartially all cases of forced disappearance, summary execution and torture, and that perpetrators were brought to justice before an independent tribunal; to establish independence of the judiciary and end impunity for persons responsible for killing or injuring individuals; and to release journalists and other individuals detained for politically motivated reasons.

A Representative of Belarus said there was no pattern of mass and gross violations of human rights in Belarus, that the text of the resolution was completely politically motivated, and that the allegations it contained were not and could not be proved by facts from credible sources, as they were absolutely unfounded.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), adopted without a vote, the Commission, among other things, welcomed efforts to establish peace in the country and steps taken by the Government to improve the status of human rights; condemned massacres and widespread human rights violations committed by rebel groups operating on the national territory; condemned cases of summary or arbitrary execution, disappearance, torture, harassment, arrest, widespread persecution and arbitrary detention for long periods throughout the country; the upsurge in the recruitment and use of child soldiers by armed forces and groups in the territory of the DRC; the impunity of those responsible for violations of human rights; the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC; and urged all parties to the conflict to cease all military activity in order to facilitate re-establishment of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC.

A Representative of the DRC said the rich countries of the North, which had sponsored the resolution, were altruistic in the case of civil and political rights but did not aid developing countries with regard to economic, social and cultural rights. Nevertheless, to show its good faith, the DRC had cooperated in the drafting of the resolution, which brought to light the human rights violations committed by rebel groups, the Representative said, and in adopting the measure, the Commission should become aware of its obligation to exercise pressure on the rebels and should urge the Security Council to set up a criminal tribunal to bring to justice perpetrators of violations committed in the DRC since 1998.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Burundi, adopted without a vote, the Commission, among other things, welcomed numerous steps taken by the Transitional Government to enhance human rights, improve security, and re-establish democracy; invited the Transitional Government to do more to put an end to impunity; condemned all attacks on humanitarian workers; urged all parties to the conflict in the country to end the use of children as soldiers and welcomed the commitment made in that regard by the Transitional Government; commended the parties to the conflict which had worked constructively with international mediators; and condemned the illegal sale and distribution of weapons and related materials.

A Representative of Burundi said the Government approved adoption of the measure by consensus and hoped full peace would be achieved in the country in the near future.

The Commission also adopted a draft decision submitted by the Chairperson on the situation of human rights in Cyprus, noting that the Commission would keep that topic as a sub-item on its agenda and would consider it again next year.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 22 April, to continue action on draft resolutions and decisions.

Action on Resolutions on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights Anywhere in the World

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba, (E/CN.4/2003/L.2), adopted by a roll-call vote of 24 in favour and 20 against, with 9 abstentions, the Commission expressed satisfaction with the appointment of Christine Chanet as Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Cuba, called for the implementation of resolution 2002/18; urged the Government of Cuba to receive the personal representative and to provide all the facilities necessary for her to fulfil her mandate contained in the resolution; and decided to consider the matter further at its sixtieth session, under agenda item 9.

The results were as follows:

In favour (24): Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.

Against (20): Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Kenya, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo and Uganda.

Before that, the Commission rejected an amendment proposed by Costa Rica (E/CN.4/2003/L.74) by a roll-call vote of 15 in favour and 31 against, with 7 abstentions, which would have had created a new operative paragraph calling upon the Government of Cuba to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedom of expression and the right to a fair trail, and expressing concern about the recent detention, summary prosecution and harsh sentencing of numerous members of the political opposition.

The results were as follows:

In favour (15): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (31): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (7): Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

The Commission also rejected by a roll-call vote of 17 in favour and 26 against, with 10 abstentions, an amendment proposed by the Cuban delegation (E/CN.4/2003/L.77) that would have had the Commission urge an immediate ending to the unilateral embargo against Cuba imposed by the United States of America, citing the embargo as a violation of human rights.

The results were as follows:

In favour (17): Algeria, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Gabon, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Against (26): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Costa Rica, Croatia, Canada, Chile, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sweden.

Abstentions (10): Brazil, Cameroon, India, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.

A Representative of Mexico said the delegation would vote against all the amendments since they changed the elements of the draft resolution.

A Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said the amendment to L.2 proposed by Costa Rica must not be adopted. There were no countries which could accept that their citizens be employed and recruited as mercenaries. The amendment proposed by Cuba was timely since the international community must ensure the end of the unjust embargo imposed upon Cuba, which violated the human rights of the Cuban people. For these reasons, Libya would vote for the Cuban amendment and against the Costa Rican amendment.

A Representative of Viet Nam said Viet Nam had time and again stated that the Commission should be turned into a forum of dialogue and cooperation to promote and protect human rights. Any resolution aimed at creating confrontation should be avoided. In Viet Nam's view, L.2 was highly unbalanced and full of unfounded allegations and criticism and confrontational language. The Vietnamese people understood the hardship suffered by the Cuban people as a result of the embargo. Consequently, Viet Nam would vote in favour of the amendment proposed by Cuba.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the Commission today was going through a profound crisis of credibility. Many of its members had been terrorized by a world tyranny that fascist extreme-right groups were trying to impose on the rest of the peoples of the world from the fraudulently usurped power of the most powerful country on Earth. The draft resolution on Cuba, tabled and adopted every year under huge and shameful pressures, that time had been publicly assumed by the Government of Peru and two equally disgusting lackeys: the Governments of Uruguay and Costa Rica. As everybody knew, the draft was made in the US. It was a gross manoeuvre, completely discredited and immoral, whose sole objective was to concoct pretexts to justify the genocidal blockade and the policy of aggression that the US Government had practiced against the Cuba more than 40 years.

Cuba steadfastly rejected this spurious attempt to condemn it through the Commission. Cuba knew that it was defending the right of respect for sovereignty and self-determination for its people and for all the peoples of the world. Cuba also knew that attempts were made to condemn it because it had fought to be free; and it would continue fighting. No condemnations, no propaganda campaigns, no slanders, no blockades, or aggressions would make the Cuban people give up their unflagging decision to defend their revolution and their independence. Cuba felt nothing but scorn towards the double standards shown by some of the participants in the Commission. Cuba had not uttered a single word about the prisoners that the US kept in the Guantanamo Naval Base, a Cuban territory usurped against Cuba's will. Why was it that those who claimed to be extremely upset by the death sentences Cuba had imposed on three terrorist hijackers of a ferryboat did not condemn the execution of minors and mentally ill people in the United States?

A Representative of Peru said Peru would vote against the amendment proposed by Costa Rica since its content was not consistent with the procedural approach in L.2. With regard to the substance of the amendment made by Costa Rica, Peru had already, through an official statement, deplored summary and arbitrary executions.

A Representative of Uruguay said Uruguay did not believe that it was appropriate to add new elements to L.2. Consequently, Uruguay was not in the position to support the amendment proposed by Costa Rica or Cuba.

A Representative of Paraguay said his delegation shared the concerns about Cuba, particularly after recent events. However, the amendment of Costa Rica would politicize the resolution, which was already exhaustive as it was. The delegation would not vote for the proposed amendment of Costa Rica.

A Representative of China said the amendment proposed by Cuba provided an excellent opportunity for the cosponsors of L.2 to demonstrate that they created this draft resolution out of genuine concern for human rights and not due to political reasons. It was clear that unilateral economic sanctions had a negative impact on human rights, especially on economic social and cultural rights. There was no point in expressing concern over human rights without removing the impediment for their enjoyment. By accepting the amendment proposed by Cuba, the Commission could encourage that State to abide by the resolution. If the amendment by Cuba was accepted, China would reconsider its position on L.2.

A Representative of Uruguay said Uruguay had expressed at every forum its rejection of the blockade imposed on Cuba. The draft resolution requested Cuba to facilitate the mission of Christine Chanet, the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to Cuba. The introduction of new elements to the draft was unnecessary.

A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said the two paragraphs in the Cuban amendment complemented the resolution. The suffering of the Cuban people, as a result of the embargo, must be taken into consideration. If these two amendments were adopted, Syria would vote for the resolution as a whole.
A Representative of Zimbabwe said Zimbabwe was against sanctions, especially illegal ones. The Cuban people did not deserve them. Zimbabwe would therefore vote for the Cuban amendment.

A Representative of the Sudan said the Sudan was also suffering from a unilateral embargo, which was a violation of human rights. The embargo on Cuba had affected the population for the last four decades. The Commission should accept the two amendments presented by Cuba.
A Representative of South Africa said the country would vote in favour of the first Cuban amendment since the international community had rejected the question of the embargo for several years. Furthermore, unilateralism was a threat to multilateralism.

A Representative of Algeria said Algeria would support the first paragraph of the Cuban amendment. Algeria opposed any sanctions that violated human rights. It was normal for the Commission to monitor and eliminate the damaging effects of embargos on human rights.
A Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said that the amendments submitted by Cuba reflected the real situation and should be included. Libya had been suffering from such an embargo. Such acts were in violation of relevant international laws.

A Representative of Malaysia said the delegation would vote in favor of paragraph 1 of the Cuban amendment in accordance with Malaysia's opposition to unilateralism.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said the international community knew the feeling of his country on the unilateral embargo, and in this connection, his country would support the first Cuban amendment.

A Representative of Cuba said those who had voted against denouncing the illegal and criminal blockade that violated the human rights of an entire people had reflected the hypocrisy and double standards with which human rights were discussed in the Commission. The same ones who were not willing to condemn the blockade also would not condemn the terrorist acts permanently committed against Cuba under sponsorship by the United States. They would always be haunted by such an injustice, and the tears of the mothers and orphans of more than 3,000 Cubans killed by these acts would fall upon their conscience.

A Representative of Argentina said the delegation would abstain from voting on draft resolution L.2 concerning the human rights situation in Cuba. However, Argentina expressed its concern about the recent events in which intellectuals and those who freely expressed their views had been given long prison terms. Argentina recognized that the embargo had played a role against the full enjoyment by the population of Cuba of its economic, social and cultural rights.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said draft resolution L.2 was an example of double standards in practice. It had been put before the Commission in a politicized manner, as could be seen from both today's and yesterday's discussions. The Russian Federation would therefore vote against the draft resolution.

A Representative of Venezuela said Venezuela had considered carefully draft resolution L.2 and noted that it lacked a proper balance. Furthermore, it did not include any reference to the impact of the sanctions on the human rights of the Cuban people. Consequently, Venezuela would not be in a position to support L.2

 

A Representative of Mexico said the country was deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Cuba. Mexico had always spoken frankly on the lifting of the embargo imposed against Cuba. Mexico's position was in keeping with the regional framework of non-confrontation; and the vote would be a faithful reflection of Mexico's foreign policy.

A Representative of Chile said the resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba, which had been adopted in 2002, had requested the High Commissioner to send a Personal Representative to Cuba to ensure cooperation between the Government of Cuba and the Office of the High Commissioner. Regrettably, the Government of Cuba had decided to not receive the Personal Representative, showing a lack of political will on the part of the Cuban Government. In addition, recent events were worrisome, and Chile would therefore vote in favor of the draft resolution.

A Representative of Ireland said Ireland was among those delegations which believed that L.2 could be improved if it included reference to the serious developments in the human rights situation in Cuba. For this reason, Ireland was among the co-sponsors of the resolution and would vote in favour of the resolution.
A Representative of Algeria said Algeria had voted against the draft last year and would do so this time. Algeria believed in peaceful relations among nations and in multilateral and bilateral cooperation. The embargo against Cuba could not be justified.

A Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said Libya felt the need to reiterate its position, since it objected to any resolution targeting specific countries, especially friendly countries such as Cuba. The resolution politicized the issues at hand and would not serve to promote human rights. Libya would therefore vote against the resolution.

A Representative of Paraguay said Paraguay would vote in favour of the resolution on the human rights situation in Cuba because of its conviction that cooperation with UN human rights bodies was fundamental for ensuring advances in the field. Paraguay would vote in favour since it considered that the resolution provided an excellent opportunity for the Government of Cuba and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen their cooperation.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.38) on the situation of human rights in Belarus, adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour and 14 against, with 16 abstentions, the Commission urged the Government of Belarus to dismiss or suspend from their duties law-enforcement officers implicated in forced disappearances and/or summary executions, pending an impartial, credible and full investigation of those cases; to ensure that all necessary measures were taken to investigate fully and impartially all cases of forced disappearance, summary execution and torture and that perpetrators were brought to justice before an independent tribunal; to establish independence of the judiciary and end impunity for persons responsible for killing or injuring individuals; to release journalists and other individuals detained for politically motivated reasons and to cease harassment of non-governmental organizations and political parties; urged the Government of Belarus to cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, and decided to examine this question at its sixtieth session.

The results were as follows:

In favour (23): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.

Against (14): Armenia, China, Cuba, India, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (16): Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Thailand, Togo, Uganda and Venezuela.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said the proliferation of country specific resolutions continued, and in this case unjustifiably. The authorities of Belarus were taking steps to enter into dialogue with the United Nations on human rights protection, as well as with the Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). There were many other positive steps being taken by Belarus. Why had this resolution been brought before the Commission when there was a real opportunity for dialogue? The answer was quite clear – the resolution was politically motivated. The Russian Federation requested a roll-call vote and of course, would vote against the resolution.

A Representative of Ireland , speaking on behalf of the European Union States that were members of the Commission, said the EU would be able to support the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Belarus. The Union had observed that the rule of law was not fully respected in the country; and it had been expressing concern about the harassment of intellectuals and journalists who were freely expressing their opinions. The Union had addressed its concern about the human rights situation in Belarus and had called on the Government to stop its repressive actions. The Union had taken note of recent development and it hoped the Government would implement measures that would contribute to the enhancement of democracy in the country.

A Representative of China said China had carefully considered draft resolution L.38 and comments submitted thereon by Belarus. China noted that the draft resolution contained several accusations against Belarus, such as the persecution of political opponents and restrictions on the activities of religious organizations. The resolution claimed that these and other violations were based on reliable sources of information. However, China was of the view that these sources of information were not reliable at all. The draft was made up of reports made by NGOs supported by Western countries. The people of China and Belarus had amicable relations, and to the best of the knowledge of China, the situation in Belarus was entirely different from that described in the draft. The major sponsors of the resolution were dissatisfied not so much with the human rights situation in Belarus as with the Government that the people of Belarus had chosen and the foreign policy it pursued.

A Representative of Cuba said Cuba could do nothing else but vote against the resolution introduced by the United States, since the resolution only served the hegemony of the latter. Belarus had a legitimately elected Government that respected the law. Cuba believed the situation in Belarus was in no way consistent with that described in the resolution. It had been strange to hear the United States talk about the killing of journalists considering the activities that the United States was engaging in in Iraq.

SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus) said that unlike the United States, Belarus had never started a single war, never, conquered another independent country, never sent Belarusian nationals to fight and kill in remote foreign lands, without any regard for either the United Nations Charter or Security Council resolutions. There was no pattern of mass and gross violations of human rights in Belarus. Therefore, the draft resolution did not fall within the mandate of the Commission. The draft text was completely politically motivated. The allegations contained therein were not and could not be proved by facts from credible sources, as they were absolutely unfounded. The adoption of the draft would considerably undermine the credibility of the Commission.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said Syria had hoped that draft resolutions would be designed to provide assistance to various countries in order to help them improve human rights. However, this draft resolution was politicized and constituted another example of double standards. For this reason, Syria would vote against the resolution.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (E/CN.4/2003/L.41/Rev.1), adopted by consensus, the Commission welcomed the Peace Agreements signed at Pretoria on 30 July 2002 and at Luanda on 6 September 2002, and the agreement on a transitional constitution and a national army signed at Pretoria on 6 March 2002; the continued presence and increased deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the DRC (MONUC); the release of some human rights defenders and the action of the Congolese Ministry of Human Rights; the visit by the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the DRC in January 2003; the promulgation by the Head of State on 4 April 2003 of the Constitution that was to govern the country throughout its transition; condemned the massacres that had occurred in the province of Ituri, and supported MONUC's efforts to investigate them; the persistence and intensification of fighting in the east of the country, and also in the zones under the effective control of the Congolese Rally for Democracy-Goma (RCD-Goma), the Congolese Rally for Democracy-Liberation Movement (RCD-ML), the Congolese Rally for Democracy-National (RCD-N) and the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo (MLC); reprisals against the civilian population in the territories controlled by RCD-Goma and MLC, in addition to exactions committed by the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), and stressed that the forces which supported RCD-Goma, MLC and UPC should also be held responsible for massacres and atrocities that had occurred; continuing violence in the Ituri region, and stressed that it was incumbent upon Uganda and the rebels who de facto controlled the zone to ensure respect for human rights and stop using ethnic conflicts to enhance their own agendas; cases of summary or arbitrary execution, disappearance, torture, harassment, arrest, widespread persecution and arbitrary detention for long periods throughout the country; the upsurge in the recruitment and use of child soldiers by armed forces and groups in the territory of the DRC; the impunity of those responsible for violations of human rights; the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC; urged all parties to the conflict to cease all military activity in order to facilitate re-establishment of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC; to protect human rights and respect international humanitarian law in the areas under their control; to put an immediate end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers; to respect the rights of women and take special measures to protect women and children from sexual and all other forms of violence; to cooperate with the Ituri Pacification Commission; to ensure that the military officers whose names were mentioned in the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in connection with serious violations should continue to be investigated and, if the conclusions of the investigations so warranted, be brought to justice; to prevent conditions that might lead to flows of refugees and internally displaced persons; to ensure the safety and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel and the unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to all affected populations; to extend full cooperation to the United Nations system; called upon the Government of the DRC to implement, together with all Congolese parties, the power-sharing agreement concluded at Pretoria and to apply the transitional constitution; to comply fully with its obligations under international human rights instruments; to put an end to impunity; to continue to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; to continue to reform the judicial system and to abolish the Military Court; to re-instate the moratorium on capital punishment; genuinely and immediately to close the irregular detention centres where the conditions of detention were degrading; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the DRC for a further year.
A Representative of Uganda said Uganda was unhappy that it had not been involved in the drafting of the resolution, as Uganda was a neighbor to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and hosted thousands of Congolese refugees. Some of the provisions of the draft had implications for Uganda. However, since the co-sponsors had come to an agreement with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda would support the resolution. Uganda was particularly happy that the resolution stressed the importance of the United Nations in promoting human rights in the country. Uganda would cooperate fully with the provisions of the resolution to ensure that human rights were respected in the area.

ANTOINE MINDUA KESIA-MBE (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the DRC condemned the spirit of selectivity prevailing in the Commission. Human rights were universal and indivisible, and therefore should be respected in each country. The DRC was a party to several international and regional human rights instruments and the Government endeavored to promote and protect human rights. However, the implementation of first-generation rights was required as a precondition for the realization of second- and third-generation rights. Prisoners could not receive three meals, civil servants could not be paid and medicines could not be bought because of the debt burden and the adverse effects that globalization had had on the DRC.
The judicial system of the DRC was criticized, but one must remember that it functioned with very little resources. When countries of the South requested the rich countries of the North to assist them in realizing their right to development the rich countries found all sort of reasons to justify their selfishness. How could one be altruistic in the case of civil and political rights and not be so with regard to economic, social and cultural rights? Nevertheless, in order to show its good faith, the DRC had cooperated with the European Union. The resolution brought to light the human rights violations committed by rebel groups. In adopting the resolution the Commission should become aware of its obligation to exercise pressure on the rebels and should urge the Security Council to set up a criminal tribunal to bring to justice perpetrators of violations committed in the DRC since 1998.

A Representative of Cuba said that if the draft were put to a vote, his delegation would vote against it. But the representative of the concerned country had chosen its adoption by consensus. The sponsors of the draft resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were among the countries that had received financial benefits from the former dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/ L.45) on the situation of human rights in Burundi, adopted without a vote, the Commission supported the transitional institutions set up in the context of the implementation of the Arusha Agreement; encouraged the Transitional Government to continue its actions aimed at associating all sectors of society in the work of national reconciliation and at the restoration of an institutional order that was safe and reassuring so as to bring back democracy and peace; urged it to pursue the goal of ensuring the equal participation of women in Burundian society and improving their living conditions; remained concerned at the ongoing violence and the violations of human rights as well as the security situation in parts of the country, and noted efforts by Burundian authorities to ensure that rights were respected; condemned the intensifying violence, especially acts of rape committed against women and urged all parties to the conflict to end the cycle of violence and killings; enjoined all parties to honour their commitments and urged all the armed groups which had not yet done so to join the peace negotiations and ensure a comprehensive ceasefire; expressed concern at the situation of displaced persons; welcomed the willingness of the Transitional Government to find solutions to the sensitive problem of persons affected by the war through the establishment of the Standing Consultation Machinery for the Protection of Displaced Persons; invited the Transitional Government to do more to put an end to impunity; condemned all attacks on humanitarian workers; took note of efforts in the struggle against impunity; supported the continuation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the programme of assistance for members of the armed forces and police in the field of human rights and legal assistance; urged all parties to the conflict to end the use of children as soldiers and welcomed the commitment made in that regard by the Transitional Government; commended the parties to the conflict which had worked constructively with international mediators; encouraged the African Union to remain engaged in preventing any further deterioration of the situation; condemned the illegal sale and distribution of weapons and related materials; requested States not to allow their territories to be used as bases for incursions or attacks against another State; called upon the Transitional Government to act to establish a security environment conducive to the work of aid organizations; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in Burundi for one year.

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said that the EU applauded the peace agreement in Burundi. Nevertheless, it remained concerned over the human rights situation in that country.
A Representative of Burundi said Burundi wished that the draft resolution could be adopted by consensus. The country hoped it would achieve full peace in the near future. Burundi also hoped that the situation of his country would be dealt with in future under agenda item 19 -- "advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights" -- instead of under item 9.

The Commission adopted without a vote a draft decision submitted by the Chairperson on the question of human rights in Cyprus stating that at its meeting on 17 April 2003, the Commission on Human Rights decided to retain on its agenda sub-item (a), entitled “Question of human rights in Cyprus”, of the item entitled “Question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world” and to give it due priority at its sixtieth session, it being understood that action required by previous resolutions of the Commission on the subject would continue to remain operative, including the request to the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Commission regarding their implementation.



* *** *