COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS MEASURES ON SITUATIONS IN EQUATORIAL GUINEA, BURUNDI, SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
19 April 2002
Morning




Also Passes Resolution on Lebanese Detainees in Israel;
Draft Resolution on Situation in Zimbabwe
Defeated on No-Action Motion


The Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions this morning on situations in Equatorial Guinea, Burundi, southeastern Europe, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and on the situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel.

In a resolution on assistance to Equatorial Guinea in the field of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour and 1 opposed, with 20 abstentions, the Commission, among other things, encouraged the Government of Equatorial Guinea to implement a national human rights action plan and, for that purpose, encouraged it to discuss and agree to a comprehensive programme of technical assistance with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Commission decided to end the mandate of its Special Representative on the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea.

A representative of Equatorial Guinea said the country had been considered under agenda item 9 of the Commission for 22 consecutive years, which was unprecedented. Equatorial Guinea had always cooperated with the Commission's Special Rapporteurs and Special Representatives, the official said, and in recent years there had been no politically motivated disappearances or arrests, arbitrary detentions, political kidnappings, ethnic violence or discrimination against ethnic groups, and the political system had been transformed.

In a consensus resolution on the situation of human rights in Burundi, the Commission, among other things, welcomed numerous steps taken by the Transitional Government of Burundi to advance human rights and establish democracy; condemned all attacks on humanitarian workers; urged all parties to the conflict to end the use of children as soldiers; 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 other States; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in Burundi for one year.

A representative of Burundi said briefly that the Transitional Government supported the resolution and urged its adoption by consensus.

In a consensus resolution on the situation of human rights in parts of south-eastern Europe, the Commission, among other things, welcomed positive developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; urged the States and parties of the region to enforce effectively international human rights standards for persons belonging to minorities; stressed the need for further strengthening of cross-border efforts to foster the prompt and voluntary return of displaced persons and refugees; condemned the ethnically motivated violence -- including continued harassment -- intolerance and discrimination against returning refugees and displaced persons; urged authorities to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and in particular to comply with their obligations to arrest immediately and transfer to the custody of the Tribunal indicted persons present in their territories or under their control; and decided to extend for one year the mandate of the Special Representative on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia said they supported the resolution and went on to describe efforts by their Governments to improve human rights.

In a consensus resolution on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Commission, among other things, welcomed a series of positive steps taken by the Government; expressed concern at the adverse impact of the conflict on the situation of human rights and its severe consequences for the security and well-being of the civilian population throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; at the situation of human rights, particularly in areas held by armed rebels or under foreign occupation; at all massacres and atrocities committed; at the continued recruitment and use of child soldiers by armed forces and groups; extended for a further year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation; and requested the Special Rapporteur, along with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and a member of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances to carry out a joint mission to investigate all massacres carried out on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

A representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said the determination of certain delegations, particularly the countries of the North, to put forward resolutions against the countries of the South, especially African countries, had proven to be anachronistic, counterproductive and even morally unacceptable, but the Democratic Republic of the Congo had thought it wise to cooperate in the adoption of the resolution to reiterate the political will of the Government to cooperate with the Commission and to reaffirm that the reforms undertaken in 2001 in the country would continue.

In a resolution on the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel, adopted by a roll-call vote of 34 in favour and 2 opposed, with 17 abstentions, the Commission called upon the Government of Israel to refrain from holding the detained Lebanese citizens incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes and to release them immediately; and affirmed the obligation of Israel to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian organizations to visit the detainees regularly.

Responding to the resolution, a representative of Israel said there were detainees, but they were held in Lebanon -- Israeli citizens, three soldiers and one civilian, had been kidnapped by the Hezbollah terrorist group in October 2000 and held in Lebanon -- and that a voting for the resolution would lend a hand to the distortion of reality and would not contribute towards peace in the region.

A no-action motion adopted by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour and 24 opposed, with 3 abstentions, ended consideration of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe. If adopted, the draft resolution, among other things, would have requested the Commission's Special Rapporteurs on torture, on the independence of judges and lawyers, on freedom of opinion and expression, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and on violence against women, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders to carry out missions to examine alleged human rights violations in Zimbabwe.

The Commission also heard the introduction to a report of the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights. Leila Takla, Chairperson of the Board, said the Fund's Technical Cooperation Programme supported countries in the promotion and protection human rights through incorporating international human rights standards into national laws, policies and practices, and building sustainable national capacities to implement these standards and ensure respect for human rights.

The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue to take action on draft resolutions and decisions.


Introduction of Report

LEILA TAKLA, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, introducing the Fund's report, said the Technical Cooperation Programme supported countries in the promotion and protection human rights through incorporating international human rights standards into national laws, policies and practices, and building sustainable national capacities to implement these standards and ensure respect for human rights. The assistance included support for treaty reporting, developing and implementing National Plans of Action, the establishment and strengthening of national institutions; assistance for constitutional and legislative reform, administration of justice, national parliaments; training of police, armed forces and prison personnel; and last but not least, non-governmental organizations were increasingly involved both in implementation and in receiving training. Some of the best practices involved programmes carried out in Mexico, the Russian Federation, and the Solomon Islands.

The establishment of a Project Review Committee allowed the Board of Trustees to devote more time to other parts of its broad mandate, including advice for long-term programming of the Technical Cooperation Programme, Ms. Takla said.


Action on Resolutions and Decisions

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.15) on the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel, adopted by a roll-call vote of 34 in favour and 2 opposed, with 17 abstentions, the Commission called upon the Government of Israel to refrain from holding the detained Lebanese citizens incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes and to release them immediately; affirmed the obligation of Israel to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian organizations to visit the detainees regularly; called upon the Government of Israel to submit to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon all maps of landmine fields laid throughout civilian villages, fields and farms; and requested the Secretary-General to bring this resolution to the attention of the Government of Israel and to call upon it to comply with its provisions.

The vote was as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against: Guatemala and Peru.

Abstentions: Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,


WALID A. NASR (Lebanon) said draft resolution L.15 was based on Israel's violations of human rights principles and international humanitarian law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention. The resolution concerned Lebanese detainees in Israel and civilians who had suffered from the Israeli occupation. Israel had in its prisons dozens of Lebanese civilians. They were transferred to Israel in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Israeli authorities prevented the International Committee of the Red Cross from visiting the detainees periodically. Some of the detainees were held without trial, other had finished their prison terms but Israel refused to release them as it wanted to use them as bargaining chips. They were subjected to torture, which was authorized by Israeli law. Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1978 and extended the aggression in 1982. The Israeli occupation forces had remained in Lebanon until May 2000 when they withdrew because of Lebanese resistance. Israeli forces had planted half a million landmines and booby traps in southern Lebanon. Israel still refused to provide maps on the location of the mines.

Since the withdrawal, Lebanon had been requesting Israel to hand over such maps. However, Israel had not cooperated. Lebanon received some information from international forces located in Lebanon. However, such information did not cover all the area that had been under Israeli occupation. Lebanon insisted that Israel should hand over these maps to the Lebanese authorities. The consequences of the mines were violating the human rights of the Lebanese population. The draft resolution requested Israel to hand over all remaining maps.

YAAKOV LEVY (Israel) said it was important to carefully distinguish acts on the ground from the text of this resolution. Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon on 24 May 2000. Israel had withdrawn unilaterally, because it had been impossible to reach an agreement on the matter with the Lebanese Government. The Security Council and the United Nations, as well as the Secretary-General had confirmed the withdrawal. Furthermore, Israel had handed over to UNIFIL maps of the landmines laid in southern Lebanon. The confirmation of the transfer had been signed by a senior office of UNIFIL. It was the Lebanese responsibility to maintain these minefields and the Lebanese Government had failed to do so for its own reasons. Therefore Lebanon could not come to the Commission to ask for redress in the form of verbal condemnation of Israel. Additionally, Lebanon had never fulfilled its responsibility regarding the maintenance of security in southern Lebanon and still allowed terrorist groups such as the Hezbollah to operate freely against Israel from its sovereign territory in the south. When the Hezbollah attacked Israel, Israel was bound to respond. Hence elements of this resolution must be put in the correct context: responding to attacks and shelling by the Hezbollah in the absence of decisive Lebanese action as warranted in fulfilling her sovereign responsibility in southern Lebanon.

The resolution also discussed detainees, and yes, there were detainees, but they were held in Lebanon. Four Israeli citizens, three soldiers and one civilian, had been kidnapped by the Hezbollah in October 2000. The soldiers were unlawfully kidnapped when the Hezbollah crossed over into Israel to abduct them and had held them incommunicado in Lebanon. It was believed that the soldiers subsequently had died of wounds sustained during the kidnapping, and their bodies were being held by the Hezbollah. The civilian who was kidnapped had been lured over to Lebanon where he was now being held in captivity. By allowing an armed group to hold Israeli detainees for the last eighteen months on its sovereign territory, the Lebanese Government was not discharging its responsibility under international law. Voting in favour of this resolution was lending a hand to the distortion of reality and not contributing towards peace in the region.

ANTONIO ARENALES FORNO (Guatemala) said that the Government of Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in May 2000. However, Lebanon did not recognize Israel's right to exist as a State within recognized and secure international boundaries and security in conformity with Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The Government of Lebanon did not prevent terrorists from attacking Israel from its southern territories. Guatemala would vote against L.15.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.20) on assistance to Equatorial Guinea in the field of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour and 1 opposed, with 20 abstentions, the Commission encouraged the Government of Equatorial Guinea to continue its efforts to adopt effective measures to protect and strengthen the human rights situation in the country; welcomed the willingness of the Government to implement a national human rights action plan and, for that purpose, encouraged it to discuss and agree to a comprehensive programme of technical assistance with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; called upon United Nations bodies and agencies, donor countries, and any other international institutions present in the country to assist the Government of Equatorial Guinea in strengthening those national institutions that promoted and protected human rights; decided to end the mandate of the Special Representative on the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea; and decided to examine the question of technical assistance to Equatorial Guinea at its fifty-ninth session under the agenda item on "advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights".

The vote was as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam et Zambia.

Against: Mexico.

Abstentions: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland et Uruguay

A proposed amendment to L.20 was defeated by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour to 26 against, with 1 abstention.

The amendment, if adopted, would have decided to replace the mandate of the Special Representative of the Commission on the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea with a mandate for an Independent Expert, to be appointed by the Secretary-General, to monitor technical assistance provided to Equatorial Guinea, to maintain a dialogue with the Government of Equatorial Guinea on its human rights policies and to report to the Commission at its fifty-ninth session.

RUBÉN MAYE NSUE (Equatorial Guinea) said his country Guinea supported the draft resolution presented by the African Group. Equatorial Guinea had been considered under agenda item 9 for 22 consecutive years, a situation which was unprecedented. Equatorial Guinea had always cooperated with the Commission's Special Rapporteurs and Special Representatives. The Special Rapporteurs on torture and arbitrary detention had recently been invited to visit the country. The ICRC was also expected to soon arrive in Equatorial Guinea to inspect prison conditions. Equatorial Guinea was committed to strengthening human rights and corporation with international organizations. However, its requests for technical assistance had been ignored.

In recent years there had been no politically motivated disappearances or arrests, arbitrary detentions, political kidnappings, ethnic violence or discrimination against ethnic groups. The political system had been transformed from a one-party to a multi-party system and the dialogue with the opposition was permanent. The country had also ratified numerous international human rights instruments, including nine ILO conventions. A National Commission on Human Rights had been established as well as a Commission against Corruption, which investigated corruption by Government officials. Equatorial Guinea had also embarked on an ambitious programs in the field of education and social well-being. Equatorial Guinea therefore believed that it was time to end the mandate of the Special Representative on Equatorial Guinea.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.22/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in Burundi, adopted without a vote, the Commission supported the transitional institutions set up under the Arusha Agreement, namely the Transitional National Assembly, the Transitional Senate, and the Transitional Government; encouraged the Transitional Government to continue its efforts to associate all sectors of Burundian society in the work of national reconciliation and in the restoration of a safe institutional order so as to bring back democracy and peace; remained concerned at ongoing violence and the security situation in parts of the country, which was forcing many people to leave their homes; condemned the intensifying violence and urged all parties to the conflict to end the cycle of violence and killings, especially blind violence against the civilian population; urged the Transitional Government to pursue the goal of ensuring the equal participation of women in Burundian society; encouraged all parties to negotiate towards a cease-fire; expressed its concern at the situation of displaced persons, and deplored in particular the unacceptable living conditions in the displaced persons sites and recommended that the Transitional Government, United Nations specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations provide humanitarian assistance; welcomed the willingness of the Transitional Government to find agreed solutions to the sensitive problem of the persons affected by the war; noted the efforts by Burundian authorities to ensure that established legal safeguards for human rights were fully respected; invited the Transitional Government to take more measures to put an end to impunity for human rights violations; welcomed the entry into force of the country's new Code of Criminal Procedure and exhorted the Transitional Government to continue to carry out legal reforms; welcomed the work carried out on questions relating to prisoners and urged the Transitional Government to ensure that the work was properly followed up; condemned all attacks on humanitarian workers and urged the parties to the conflict to abstain from any action hampering operations by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian agencies providing assistance to those affected by the war; took note of the efforts made in the struggle against impunity and for the promotion of human rights on the part of the Transitional Government; 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 the police in the field of human rights and legal assistance; urged all parties to the conflict to end the use of children as soldiers; urged all parties to the conflict to work constructively with international mediators; encouraged the Organization of African Unity in its efforts to remain engaged in preventing any further deterioration of the situation; called for the strengthening of the Human Rights Observer Mission in Burundi and for full participation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Burundi in the implementation of the Arusha Agreement; 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; exhorted donors to deliver promptly on the commitments made at the Paris Conference and the Geneva Round Table Conference in order to provide an impetus for the new peace process; called upon the Transitional Government to take action to establish security sufficient to allow the work of aid organizations; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi for one year.

ALPHONSE BARANCIRA (Burundi), speaking as a concerned country, said he supported the introduction of the draft resolution and urged that this draft be adopted by consensus.


A no-action motion on resolution L.23 on the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe (E/CN.4/2002/L23) was adopted by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour to 24 against, with 3 abstentions.

The vote on the no-action motion was as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay.

Abstentions: Brazil, Cameroon and Venezuela.

The draft resolution, if adopted, would have expressed concern at the adverse impact of actions by the Government of Zimbabwe on the security of its citizens; expressed concern about continuing violations of human rights and attacks on fundamental freedoms; and would have requested the Special Rapporteurs on torture, on the independence of judges and lawyers, on freedom of opinion and expression, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and on violence against women, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders to carry out, as soon as possible, missions to examine alleged human rights violations in Zimbabwe and to report to the Commission at its fifty-ninth session.

PIUS IKPEFUAN AYEWOH (Nigeria) speaking, on behalf of the African Group, said the Commission should not be used to examine issues that were politically motivated. Selectivity was to be avoided. The draft resolution did not resist these inclinations. There could be no productive debate about Zimbabwe without examining the issue of land. The African Group was of the view that the co-sponsors of the resolution drew from issues that were not meant to be addressed in this forum. The resolution was totally out of context, was counterproductive and could subvert progress achieved thanks to African initiatives. The resolution avoided addressing the root causes of the situation in Zimbabwe and exaggerated its symptoms. The issue should be kept in the appropriate context and where it belonged, which was not in the Commission. The African Group called on the Commission not to take action on the draft resolution.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said his country was opposed to draft resolution L.23 and seconded the no-action motion proposed by Nigeria. Zimbabwe had suffered colonial rule and after independence the Government had made tremendous efforts to raise the living standards of its citizens. The problems suffered today in Zimbabwe were largely due to the former colonial power. They were not a human rights issue, and the assessment of the human rights situation in the draft was neither factual nor fair. African countries were best qualified to assess their own affairs. China supported the African judgement on this issue and seconded the no-action motion.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said draft resolution L.23 had nothing to do with human rights, it was just a reflection of the appetite of the imperialist powers. The text was presented within the context of colonialist nostalgia. It was motivated on political grounds and showed pure evidence of selectivity. The draft was not credible and could not be accepted. Cuba would vote against it and would support the no-action raised by Nigeria.

MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said that it opposed no-action motions on resolutions concerning specific situations. The rules might allow for such motions but they amounted to a denial of the mandate of the Commission. The draft resolution referred to human rights concerns that should be addressed by the Commission. Canada would oppose the motion proposed by Nigeria.

TOUFIK SALLOUM (Syria) said the draft resolution was clear evidence of the selectivity and double standards applied in the Commission. Zimbabwe was a free country and could decide on its own affairs. The Commission must not interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Why was there all of a sudden such a concern with Zimbabwe? It was an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe. Syria strongly supported the motion of no-action.

ABSA CLAUDE DIALLO (Senegal) said his country supported the rule of law and equality of rights. Senegal was committed to democratic principles and good governance. However, supporting the no-action motion did not mean that it was abandoning its principles.

J. M. GICHERU (Kenya) said that L.23 was an unfortunate development. Everyone was aware that the situation in Zimbabwe arose from the critical issue of land. The question of whether the issue had been addressed by Zimbabwe was open to question. However, the resolution confined itself to a discriminatory condemnation of the Government of Zimbabwe. A much more useful approach would be to seek ways to ensure a much more equitable distribution of land in the country. Kenya was in favour of the no-action motion introduced by the African Group.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said once again the Commission had before it yet another African targeted country. Even in the confidential procedure the Commission had only targeted five African countries as if human rights violations only took place in Africa. Libya wondered where the Commission had been in the past, if the draft really explained what was going on in Zimbabwe? Why the sudden interest? The social, economic and political situation in Zimbabwe was perhaps not ideal, but there was no ideal situation in the world. Zimbabweans were the masters of their own future and one could not impose regimes on other countries. Libya would vote in favour of the no-action motion.

JOAQUÍN PEREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the EU regretted the introduction of a no-action motion by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. For the Union, it was an important matter of principle to vote against no-action motions which were clearly aimed at preventing the Commission from dealing with specific country situations. No country -- large or small -- could be regarded by the Commission as being beyond or above consideration by international human rights fora. That would run counter to the principles of universality and interdependence of all human rights, as reaffirmed by the Vienna Declaration. The Union was following with great attention the human rights situation in Zimbabwe.

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said his country would vote in favour of the no-action motion. Algeria believed that human rights should not be a monopoly of any particular region. Algeria was surprised that a series of resolutions had created a North-South conflict. This was not the fault of the South. The draft resolution had been introduced stealthily and had not been negotiated with any other group. This was not normal, given the usual consultation procedures. The resolution was silent on the process to promote national reconciliation and the agrarian reforms in Zimbabwe. Problems related to decolonization still had not been settled and the Commission should not destabilize southern Africa.

MARICLAIRE ACOSTA (Mexico) said his country was opposed to any no-action motion within the Commission. Concerning the development of the proposal, the Commission worked through its special mechanisms and the draft had been produced pursuant to the many complaints received.

ANTOINE MINDUA KESIA-MBE (the Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the Democratic Republic of the Congo would support the no-action motion set forward by Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.24) on the situation of human rights in parts of south-eastern Europe, adopted without a vote, the Commission stressed the need to protect, promote and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to consolidate effective, functioning democratic institutions; welcomed the progress made in human rights in the region; urged the States and parties of the region to enforce effectively international human rights standards for persons belonging to minorities; stressed the need for further strengthening of cross-border efforts to foster the prompt and voluntary return of displaced persons and refugees; condemned the ethnically motivated violence -- including continued harassment -- intolerance and discrimination against returning refugees and displaced persons; called upon the authorities of the region to consolidate the rule of law by providing effective judicial mechanisms; urged them to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and in particular to comply with their obligations to arrest immediately and transfer to the custody of the Tribunal indicted persons present in their territories or under their control; underlined the importance of consistent efforts to establish the fate of missing persons; encouraged the international community to continue providing assistance to meet pressing human rights needs in the region; welcomed the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Council of Europe and the adoption of its Electoral Law; urged the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to complete fully and urgently the implementation of the Agreement to secure equal treatment to all citizens regardless of their ethnic background, and called on them, particularly on Republika Srpska authorities, to fully cooperate with the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia; welcomed the adoption of the Federal Law on National and Ethnic Minorities by the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its accession to the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; called upon the Yugoslav authorities to fulfil the conditions for membership in the Council of Europe; welcomed the decision by the Government to transfer ethnic Albanian prisoners from Kosovo to the custody of the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo; welcomed the establishment of provisional self-governing institutions and the progress concerning the rule of law in Kosovo; called upon Albanian political leaders from Kosovo and leaders of the Albanian community in southern Serbia publicly to support action against extremism and to use their influence to block support for extremists in Kosovo, in southern Serbia and in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as a means of securing peace and the protection of human rights; and decided to extend for one year the mandate of the Special Representative on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

MILORAD SCEPANOVIC (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) said the progress made in the overall situation of human rights in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been reflected in the text of L. 24. The text also reached an appropriate balance in reflecting upon areas which deserved praise and those in which further action was deemed necessary. Two draft laws on broadcasting and telecommunications would provide for the regulation of the media in a transparent and democratic manner and in keeping with high international standards. The process of reforming outdated legislation so that there was full subordination of the armed forces to the civilian authorities was of utmost importance to the Government and would be thoroughly worked upon with the support and advice of relevant international and regional agencies. Should the achieved progress in the field of respect and promotion of human rights in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia be sustained, by the next session of the Commission, there would be no need for further extension of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Commission on the situation of human rights in the country.

MILOS VUKASINOVIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) thanked the Commission for this draft resolution. The most important aspects of human rights protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina were issues concerning the implementation of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on constituency of its peoples, Bosnians, Croats and Serbs, on all the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina; strengthening of State institutions; cooperation with the ICTY; and the return and integration of refugees and internally displaced persons which was emphasized in paragraph 13. The new coalition Government had applied itself to working towards further protection of human rights in the region. The Special Representative fully testified to the progress achieved. It was hoped that this draft would be adopted by consensus and that it would be the last draft resolution on human rights in the region.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.25/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, adopted by consensus, the Commission welcomed the statements by the President of the country that no more children would be recruited as soldiers and the ratification by the Democratic Republic of the Congo of the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict; welcomed the meeting to prepare for inter-Congolese dialogue; welcomed the signature by all parties concerned of a declaration undertaking to release all prisoners of conscience, permit the free movement of goods and persons and protect the civilian population; welcomed the release by the Government of human rights defenders and its lifting of some restrictions on non-governmental organizations; welcomed the adoption by the Government of the Political Parties Act No. 001 and the prospects for openness and tolerance that the Act held out; welcomed the announcement by the President that the Military Court would no longer try civilians, and urged that trials of civilians by the Military Court cease entirely and all detention centres not under the control of the Public Prosecutor's Office be closed; welcomed the commitment by the President to improve the human rights situation; welcomed the National Conference on Human Rights held from 24 to 30 June 2001; expressed its concern at the adverse impact of the conflict on the situation of human rights and its severe consequences for the security and well-being of the civilian population throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; expressed its concern at the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in areas held by armed rebels or under foreign occupation; expressed its concern at all massacres and atrocities committed; at occurrences of summary and arbitrary executions, disappearance, torture, beating, harassment and arrest; at the widespread use of sexual violence against women and children; at the continued recruitment and use of child soldiers by armed forces and groups; at summary sentencing to death and executions carried out by the Congolese Rally for Democracy (Goma) and the occupying forces; at indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, including on hospitals, in areas held by rebel and by foreign forces; at the reprisals against civilian populations in parts of the country controlled by the Congolese Rally for Democracy and Rwanda, on the one hand, and by breakaway groups of the Congolese Liberation Movement and Uganda, on the other; at the excess accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons; at violations of the freedoms of expression, opinion, association and assembly throughout the country, more especially in the east; and at the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; urged all parties to the conflict to facilitate the re-establishment without delay of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; to protect human rights and respect international humanitarian law; to ensure the safety, security, and freedom of movement of United Nations and associated personnel and the unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to all affected populations; to cease all military activity which was in breach of the Lusaka Agreement, the Kampala disengagement plan, the Harare sub-plans for redeployment, and relevant Security Council resolutions, and urged all foreign forces to withdraw without delay from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; to put an immediate end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers; to create conditions for the safe, voluntary return of all refugees and internally displaced persons; to permit investigations of violations of human rights and humanitarian law; to establish and cooperate fully with the National Commission of Inquiry on the alleged massacres of a large number of refugees and displaced persons in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; called upon the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to comply fully with its obligations and to take a leading part in efforts to prevent further flows of displaced persons and refugees; to continue the reform and restoration of the judicial system; to end impunity; to create conditions that would allow for a genuine democratization process; to ensure full respect for freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom of the press; to cooperate fully with the International Tribunal for Rwanda; called upon the Governments whose forces were in occupation of part of the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to respect human rights and international humanitarian law in areas still under their control; decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for another year; and requested the Special Rapporteur, along with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and a member of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances to carry out a joint mission to investigate all massacres carried out on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), including those in the province of South Kivu and other atrocities referred to in various reports of the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

ANTOINE MINDUA KESIA-MBE (the Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the determination of certain delegations, particularly the countries of the North, to put forward resolutions against the countries of the South, especially African countries, had proven to be anachronistic, counterproductive and even morally unacceptable, particularly when these countries were far from being a model of respect for human rights. The Democratic Republic of the Congo had no reason to support any draft resolution by the EU since the situation of human rights in the country had clearly improved in recent months, as attested to by both opponents of the regime on the spot and human rights defenders and other independent observers. This reality had been also clearly reflected in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

And yet, the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had thought it wise to cooperate in the adoption of the resolution to reiterate the political will of the Government of Democratic Republic of the Congo to cooperate with the Commission and to reaffirm that the reforms undertaken in 2001 in the country would continue. The Democratic Republic of the Congo regretted that the international community was not sufficiently outraged by the human tragedy caused by the war of aggression which his country was subjected to on the part of its neighbours to the south and which had taken the toll of 500,000 direct or indirect victims since 1998. How many women had to be buried alive, raped or contaminated by HIV/AIDS by force? How many more children had to be kidnapped and deported outside the national borders and enrolled in the armies of the aggressor countries? How many more massacres and other acts of genocide would be needed before the Commission would recommend to the Economic and Social Council to ask the Secretary-General to examine the feasibility of establishing an international criminal tribunal for the Congo?

There was extensive debate of a draft a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.26) on the situation of human rights in Iraq, but the Commission delayed action on the draft until its afternoon meeting.

SAMIR AL-NIMA (Iraq) said once again and as had happened in previous years, the European Union (EU) had put forward a draft resolution against Iraq. It had political objectives, was subjective and consisted of language of confrontation as opposed to dialogue. The aggression against Iraq of more than 11 years had led to immense violations of human rights. If the co-sponsors really cared about human rights, they would have referred directly to the situation of siege that Iraq found itself in. Iraq had repeatedly called upon the Commission to deal with the situation in Iraq without political aims, but in an open and transparent way. The report of the Special Rapporteur had not even been considered but ignored by the co-sponsors. They had once again reiterated allegations on the humanitarian side, without taking into consideration the economic siege. The draft resolution would have had more credibility if it at least had mentioned the repercussions of the economic blockade which had violated the right to life of 1.6 million people. Problems with the oil-for-food programmes and its stalling had also been ignored in the draft resolution.

Were the co-sponsors not aware of the facts, and if they were, why had these facts not been mentioned? Again, the selectivity of the Commission was evident and the co-sponsors had ignored that the economic sanctions had adversely affected the implementation of certain agreements and recommendations. It was regrettable to see that the same allegations were repeated year after year. Concerning the rights of minorities, the Iraqi Government guaranteed the full enjoyment of human rights to minorities. The Kuwaiti missing persons issue was a problem and Iraq wished to solve this issue away from the politicization of the Commission. Cooperation and dialogue was the best way to achieve human rights, and the selectivity of targeting developing countries in the Commission was unacceptable. The draft resolution lacked reference to the true situation in Iraq, including the effects of the economic blockade and depleted uranium.

DHARAR A.R. RAZZOOQI (Kuwait) said the four Geneva Conventions stipulated that after cession of hostilities prisoners of war should be released immediately. After the cessation of hostilities between Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 a tripartite commission had been established. The Commission, which was made up of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the coalition partners and Iraq, and headed by Red Cross, was charged with ensuring the release and location of Kuwaiti prisoners of war. Until now, nothing had been achieved. There had been Security Council resolutions on the matter Unfortunately, Iraq had not abided by these resolutions. Last night the Security Council had issued a statement in which members of the Security Council expressed their deep concerned at the plight of Kuwaitis still in Iraq. Kuwait urged Iraq to cooperate and release Kuwaiti prisoners of war immediately and unconditionally and to restore Kuwaiti property.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (the Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation had carefully studied the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iraq. Regrettably, the text was a reflection of a political issue instead of the real situation. The delegation would like to have a separate vote on operative paragraphs 2, 3a, 3b, 3e and 3f.

OMER M. A. SIDDIG (Sudan) said reports of international organizations had showed the inhuman and tragic circumstances resulting from the economic sanctions on Iraq. More than 1.5 million people had died as a result of the sanctions. As stated by a UNICEF report more than half a million children had died as a result of the sanctions. The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had even stated that the economic sanctions were on par with a genocide of the Iraqi people. No mention had been made of that fact in the draft resolution.

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said his country would vote against L.26 and supported the proposal by the Russian Federation. Algeria saw no difference between the resolution passed last year and this year. The resolution was dangerous on a number of scores. It was disproportionate and included an appeal to internal intervention. People were in charge of their national sovereignty and it was not up to the Commission to decide what system they should adopt. Further, there was no reference to the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said Iraq was unable to cope with the economic embargo imposed against it eleven years ago. There was no cooperation between Iraq and Kuwait, and that should be stressed in the text. There was a situation of domination. The effort to send a mission to monitor the situation was an interference in the internal affairs of Iraq.



* *** *