COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTION CRITICIZING ISRAELI SETTLEMENT POLICIES

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
12 April 2002
Afternoon



Debate Continues on Civil and Political Rights



The Commission on Human Rights approved by roll-call vote this afternoon a resolution expressing concern over the continued establishment of settlements by Israel in the occupied Arab territories and urging the Government of Israel to reverse its settlement policy.
The measure, adopted by a vote of 52 in favour and 1 opposed -- Guatemala -- also expressed concern at closures of and within the Palestinian territories and at restrictions on the freedom of movement of Palestinians. It strongly condemned all acts of violence, in particular indiscriminate terrorist attacks over past weeks that had killed and injured civilians.
The Commission carried on this afternoon with its debate on civil and political rights, hearing from a series of national delegations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Georgia and Denmark called for greater efforts to eradicate torture. Switzerland said an end had to be put to impunity for such acts -- that Governments in all countries must ensure that persons guilty of torture were punished wherever they were. The Republic of Korea and Denmark expressed support for an optional protocol to the Convention against Torture that would allow visits by international experts to places of detention.
Others delivering statements were Nicaragua, Egypt, the Holy See, the United States, Liechtenstein, Ireland, Slovenia, Romania, Turkey, Cyprus, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the NGOs Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Coordination francaise pour le Lobby Europeen des Femmes; United Nations Association of China; and Agir ensemble pour les droits de l'homme.
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 15 April, to continue its debate on civil and political rights and to act on outstanding resolutions under its agenda items on racism and racial discrimination and the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories.

Action on Resolutions
MARCOS GOMEZ MARTINEZ (Spain), speaking on behalf of the EU, said that it regretted it was not able to support resolution L.2, adopted this morning, on the occupied Syrian Golan. While the resolution was not completely in line with the corresponding General Assembly resolution, the main concern for the Union was a different one. The EU felt that in order for the Union to support the text in this forum, it would need a stronger focus on human rights. The EU also noted with regret that this year no opportunity had been given by the main sponsor of this resolution to engage in negotiations intended to improve the text.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.17) on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and 1 opposed, the Commission expressed grave concern at the dramatic escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which had led to a spiral of hatred, anger, and further violence, and to increased suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians; expressed concern at continuing Israeli settlement activities; strongly condemned all acts of violence, in particular indiscriminate terrorist attacks over the past weeks, killing and injuring civilians; expressed concern at closures of and within the Palestinian territories and the restriction of the freedom of movement of Palestinians; urged the Government of Israel to comply fully with previous Commission resolutions on the subject; to reverse its settlement policy in the occupied territories; to prevent any new installation of settlers in the occupied territories; to implement the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the settlements; to confiscate arms and take other measures with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers; and it urged the parties to implement immediately Security Council resolutions 1397 (2002) and 1402 (2002), and called for the Israeli and Palestinian sides and their leaders to cooperate in the implementation of the Security Implementation Work Plan and the recommendations of the Mitchell Report aimed at resuming negotiations.
The vote was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: Guatemala
Abstentions: None
MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said his country withdrew its co-sponsorship of the resolution. However it would vote in favour. Algeria regretted that draft resolution L.17 contained no specific reference to what was occurring in the occupied territories, especially the large number of deaths and the massacres committed, inter alia, in Jenin and Nablus. Hundreds of people had been killed and the Commission could not simply refer to a dramatic escalation that put on an equal footing Israeli and Palestinian violence. The draft resolution made no reference to deportations and detention camps set up by Israel and which held thousands of people. States were urged to stop providing Israel with weapons.
ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), explaining a vote before the vote, said Saudi Arabia had also withdrawn its name from the list of co-sponsors for the same reasons given by Algeria. However, Saudi Arabia would still vote in favour of the draft resolution.
YAAKOV LEVY (Israel), speaking as representative of a concerned country, said the issue of settlements was one of those difficult issues left to be negotiated along with all outstanding issues during permanent status negotiations between Israeli and Palestinians. This was agreed upon in September 1993 in the Oslo Accord. This issue had been discussed at length during the Camp David Summit in July 2000 and during the negotiations that followed in Taba in January 2001. Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority made a strategic decision to resort to violence rather than continue these negotiations. By passing judgement in a one-sided manner on one of the still outstanding issues between Israelis and Palestinians, the Commission would be prejudging the results of the negotiations, thus creating one more disincentive for the Palestinians to resume the negotiations once violence subsided. Israel urged the members of the Commission to vote against this resolution. It also pointed out that the language used by the delegate of Algeria was inappropriate, and urged him to focus on the issues at hand.
TOUFIK SALLOUM (Syria) said draft resolution L.17 was too weak and should have been much stronger in its condemnation of Israel. Settlements were illegitimate and constituted an obstacle to peace. Israel should start dismantling the settlements. Until that time, it should prevent barbaric aggressions by the settlers against the Palestinian people. Israel continued to expand the settlements on the pretext of natural population growth and continued to establish new ones.
ANTONIO ARENALES FORNO (Guatemala) in explanation of a vote before the vote, said Guatemala was not in the favour of the construction of settlements in the occupied territories, but would speak against the draft resolution since it was an isolated focus on the issue and inappropriate. The issues of Israeli withdrawal, free determination of the Jewish people, the compliance of the Palestinian Authority, settlements, and Palestinian refugees could not be discussed separately. They could not be dealt with in isolation but must be considered jointly.
Action on draft resolution L.16, on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, was delayed until Monday, 15 April. Comments on the draft resolution were made by representatives of Israel and Palestine.
YAAKOV LEVY(Israel) said that were draft resolution L.16 truly designed to promote human rights concerns, it would have taken a factual, balanced approach; a non-political, reasoned perspective, one that was not detached from reality. Were this text drafted with the aim of ending violence, it would have included a clear and unequivocal demand for the Palestinian leadership to call upon its followers to end violent armed attacks and suicide bombings against Israelis. While this resolution was being discussed, a suicide bombing had been carried out in Jerusalem. It was a massacre. The paragraphs relating to the right to resist by all available means legitimized Palestinian acts of terrorism. No window dressing of dropping four words could change the nature of the resolution. It was inconceivable that the Commission could endorse such violence.
Were the authors of this draft resolution committed to ending incitement, they would have felt compelled to demand that the Palestinian leadership, media and preachers in the mosques, in Gaza and elsewhere, end their anti-Israel campaign and rhetoric of hatred. Peace could not be reached by calling on Israel alone to make concessions. Nor could peace be attained by laying blame on only one side. The text was completely one-sided and politicized. Israel, the only UN member State deprived of the right to belong to a regional group and thus unable to become a member of this Commission, had been repeatedly and unfairly singled out at the Commission.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said that the resolution would prove to be robust and useful. The draft before the Commission focused primarily on violations by the Israeli Government of human rights in the last year. Some paragraphs referred to what was happening currently -- flagrant human rights violations. It was not just a political issue as some representatives sought to pretend. There was a habit of focusing attention on solutions based on negotiations, which seemed ironic since the Israeli speaker knew the Israeli Prime Minister had adopted a stance against negotiations. He had taken power to entirely liquidate the Palestinian State and to bring an end to all agreements between the two sides. For months he had been only destroying the entire Palestinian society through massacres. The massacres were being perpetuated this very minute.
The massacres in the villages, towns and camps had cost over 1,200 lives and injured many more. Over 2,000 Palestinian had been taken into detention without anyone knowing what had happened to them. The massacres had taken place but the media had been prevented from reporting on these flagrant violations of human rights. The Israelis had sought to hide hundreds and hundreds of bodies. In Israel's endeavours to cover up these crimes, journalists had been killed. Why had Israel not authorized the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit the region? This was another aspect of the cover-up. These crimes had been carried out by the Israeli Defense Force in contravention of all international conventions and human rights instruments. Peace could not be compatible with occupation. If Israel really desired peace, it would withdraw.

Debate on Civil and Political Rights
YOUN-SOO LEE (the Republic of Korea) said that the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances had informed the Commission that the number of disappearances reported to the Working Group over the past years had been declining. This could be considered a positive sign. However, over the past 20 years only about 10 per cent of some 50,000 individual cases of disappearances had been clarified through the efforts of the Working Group. Families, relatives and friends of disappeared persons suffered severely, not knowing the fate of their loved ones. The Governments concerned should continue to cooperate fully with the Working Group to investigate and clarify outstanding cases.
The international community also needed to intensify its efforts to eradicate torture. An Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture would strengthen the system of prevention. Democracy was an essential element in the process of ripening the culture of human rights. Democracy and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The enhancement of human rights was not a task that was going to be accomplished overnight. It was a long journey, but the human rights policy of the Korean Government was aimed at progressively achieving the ideals of human dignity, democratic values and justice for all.
ALEXANDER KAVSADZE (Georgia) said it was important to remember that respect for human rights had to be at the centre of the struggle against terrorism. Those who had lived in the former Soviet Union knew very well what it meant "to combat terrorism with terrorism". That was why the world needed to ensure that innocent people did not become victims of counter-terrorism measures. The struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been a basic issue of deep concern to Georgia since its independence. The Government implemented the following measures: a special national body against torture; abolition of the death penalty; reduction of preliminary detention; and the civil monitoring of the penitentiary system. Unfortunately, torture continued to exist in Georgia and in other parts of the world. Life had shown that all measures taken by Governments as well as by international bodies were not able to eradicate torture unless permanent preventive efforts were made.
The Georgian delegation appreciated the resolution of the forty-eighth session of the Commission which called for the establishment of an open-ended inter-sessional Working Group to elaborate a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture. There was a need to create a flexible, strong and active international preventive mechanism which would allow visits to countries without any difficulty.
ANA NAVARRO (Nicaragua) said there was a continuing process under way to guarantee human rights in the country. The people of Nicaragua also continued to struggle for the consolidation of their democracy. In last year's report the Special Rapporteur on summary or extrajudicial killings had included cases that had taken place in Nicaragua and those cases had been dealt with by the Government; however, it was regrettable that the Rapporteur also had included the cases in this year's report.
The country now had a new Government elected with the participation of 94 per cent of the voters. The election had been carried out in a transparent manner and in the presence of international observers. Nicaragua was against any violations of human rights by dictators of the right or left.
KHALED ABDEL HAMID (Egypt) said that the human rights policy of Egypt was based on a commitment to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, international human rights instruments and the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action. Egypt considered all human rights to be indivisible and interdependent and made all efforts to implement all civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights, as evidenced by international reports. Egypt continued to cooperate with human rights mechanisms, including the Commission's Special Rapporteurs.
The Government recently had submitted a bill on free association. The bill encouraged the creation of free associations, as civil society had an important role to play in strengthening democracy and economic development. Egypt had actively participated in the work of drafting an optional protocol to the Convention against Torture. Egypt considered that the Convention against Torture and the Committee against Torture must be the prime bodies to addressing the question.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said in the fight against torture, national and international human rights mechanisms needed to be improved. The battle cry must be no more impunity. No cruel or degrading treatment must be tolerated and it was essential to condemn such practices in the strongest terms. Governments in all countries must make this known and ensure that any persons guilty of torture be punished wherever they were.
Some groups such as human rights advocates and journalists often had their civil and political rights violated through extrajudicial or arbitrary detentions or excessive use of force. This was particularly worrying in the treatment of journalists and human rights advocates in the occupied territories by Israel and in Chechnya by the Russian Federation. In Colombia as well, there was a worrying trend of impunity. This practice had led to untold suffering of victims and their families. The importance of the right to chose one's religion was basic, and had a clear link to the right of freedom of expression. It was important in this context to focus more attention on the violation of freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, and also in countries such as China and Viet Nam. These countries had failed to allow the climates of their societies to evolve according to the religious beliefs of their citizens.
DIARMUND MARTIN (the Holy See) said respect for religious freedom meant welcoming the contribution of religious believers as vital for the construction of lasting peace. The question of religious minorities, especially where a particular religious tradition was dominant, was addressed in different ways in national legislation. The Holy See welcomed dialogue with Governments in order to ensure the widest possible respect for the religious freedom of all.
The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, as well as the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict, laid down specific norms in regard to the protection of "historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constituted the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples". The Holy See stressed that respect for those norms applied to all conflicts and to all parties in a conflict. The Holy See in Jerusalem and the Holy Land had a special significance for the three monotheistic traditions -- indeed for the whole of humanity. Disrespect for or misuse of those sites constituted a violation of international norms as well as bilateral agreements.
STEVEN SOLOMON (the United States) said that at a time when the international community had been united in its condemnation of international terrorism, the resolution on the occupied Arab territories that would be acted on later today would cast the Commission in the position of supporting the use of terrorism and violence against innocent civilians rather than promoting protection of human rights. Neither the Commission nor any UN organization nor any State could be seen to endorse terrorism for any reason.
It was important to stress that capital punishment was not prohibited by customary international law or by any treaty to which the United States was currently a party. When carried out pursuant to due process, capital punishment for the most serious crimes was permitted under international law and was consistent with obligations assumed by the United States under applicable human rights treaties. The United States did not recognize any customary law prohibition on the use of capital punishment with respect to crimes committed by those under the age of 18 and believed that it should be for each nation to decide for itself through democratic processes whether its domestic law should permit capital punishment in accordance with international law.
CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said the Commission had an important role to play in addressing the relationship between terrorism and human rights. However, it was Liechtenstein's view that the Commission had not lived up to this responsibility in the past. This was the first session of the Commission after the attacks of 11 September; it had sharpened the focus of the international community on the fight against terrorism. It was therefore of crucial importance that the Commission adopt a text on this issue which addressed all aspects of the complex relationship in a thorough, legally sound and politically viable nature. Human rights violations could be both a cause and a consequence of terrorism. The Commission must stress that the fight against terrorism could not be used as a pretext for human rights violations.
Acts of terrorism had a strong negative impact on the full enjoyment of human rights. This undeniable fact must be addressed through a closer examination of the role of non-State actors in general and terrorist groups in particular. One must not jeopardize the existing legal framework for human rights work by making statements which bestowed a status upon terrorist groups to which they were not entitled. Such an approach was short-sighted and would eventually weaken the stance against terrorism, especially if it was accompanied by arbitrary classifications of who was a terrorist. The only way the Commission could play the role it must in the fight against terrorism was through addressing all aspects of the problem in a careful and consensual manner.
MARY WHELAN (Ireland) said last year had marked the twentieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief. Last year also had witnessed the tragic events of 11 September. In the aftermath of that tragedy, the highest priority should be attached to promoting tolerance and non-discrimination in all societies. Preventive strategies should be emphasized in the fight against intolerance and in all efforts to ensure that nobody suffered violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Ireland welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and strongly endorsed his work and took note of his recommendations. In his report, and in the reports of other rapporteurs, Ireland read that the most basic of human rights was far from being enjoyed by all people in all parts of the world.
Ireland remained concerned at violations suffered by many particularly vulnerable groups such as persons belonging to religious minorities, including continued discrimination against members of the Baha'i faith in many parts of the world.
ALJAZ GOSNAR (Slovenia) said human rights were universal, interdependent and interrelated. This held true for civil and political rights in relation to other human rights. Closely linked with efforts to prevent torture was the need to fight enforced disappearances. Slovenia agreed that there was a pressing need to draft an appropriate international legal instrument on disappearances and called upon the Commission to give a decisive impetus to its elaboration.
PETRU DUMITRIU (Romania) said Romania had taken pride in introducing the resolution on the promotion and consolidation of democracy adopted by the Commission two years ago. The debate continued to be fertile and Romania was convinced there was an increase in support for this year's draft resolution. The link was clear between human rights and democracy -- that was obvious when one looked at new democracies that not yet consolidated their status and which easily fell back into human rights violations. The Commission must continue to work hard to consolidate and promote democracy.
ERDOGAN ISCAN (Turkey) said humanity had witnessed and suffered from several patterns of terrorism in the course of history and unfortunately new patterns had emerged. The events of 11 September had shown once again the cruel nature of terrorism in a very tragic way, while proving that no nation was immune to international terrorism. Turkey itself had suffered from various kinds of terrorism. From early 1970s through the first half of the 1980s, Turkish diplomats had been victims of a systematic campaign of terrorism. Turkey had been combatting all kinds of terrorism in a very determined manner while persistently maintaining its resolve to implement an extensive programme of human rights. However, Turkey's calls for international cooperation and solidarity against terrorism generally had gone unheard.
Turkey found it rather ironic that the facts it had been voicing for so many years were now understood better after 11 September. Until last year, Turkey had been the main sponsor of the "human rights and terrorism" resolution in the Commission annually. It was Turkey's sincere wish that all would draw the required lessons from the tragic 11 September events and take the courageous steps needed to combat terrorism. Turkey was ready as always to play its part in that struggle.
HENRIK REE IVERSEN (Denmark) said torture and similar abuses were still widespread. The eradication of torture was not just a question of abstaining from applying certain measures. The struggle against torture required a determined effort in many fields, such as punishment of the perpetrators, social and medical rehabilitation of torture victims, education and training of officials, special measures for the protection of particularly vulnerable groups, and abolition of all forms of judicial corporal punishment. The introduction of a global visiting mechanism would also provide an effective means for preventing torture. It would provide a forum for dialogue with authorities and personnel directly involved with persons deprived of their liberty, examine conditions and procedures of detention, offer practical and moral support for persons deprived of their liberty and have a deterrent effect on torture.
HELENA MINA (Cyprus) said concern remained over missing and disappeared persons in Cyprus, as the problem remained unresolved. In human terms, the agony and uncertainty and the drama of the families whose loved ones were still missing continued unabated. The efforts of the Government and of the families of the missing had failed to secure the needed humanitarian cooperation of those who were in a position to help find a solution to this tragic problem. To achieve this humanitarian goal it was necessary to secure convincing and concrete elements and evidence about the fate of each and every missing person, whether Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot.
In this respect, the methodology of presumption of death put forward by some as a "solution" to the problem was unacceptable since it was contrary not only to humanitarian principles and to the rights of the missing and their families, but also to the fundamental principles and values of the Commission. It would be tragic for the state of human rights if the missing persons and their families in Cyprus, both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot, continued to be treated differently.
VLADIMIR MALEVICH (Belarus) said many people were not able to exercise their freedom of expression. Mutual accusation in the Commission would not bear fruit; instead there should be mutual understanding. The current legislation of Belarus had allowed the registration of a number of organizations working in various fields. In addition, more than one hundred newspapers were being printed. There was free expression in the media. The international community, particularly the Commission, should give more attention to freedom of expression. It needed more attention; many people gave their lives for it.
OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said the 1,362 Moroccan detainees held in Algeria were the victims of a human drama that had continued for a quarter century. As justly said by the International Committee of the Red Cross, these were the most longstanding detainees in the world. It was a shameful, inhuman and unacceptable situation. The 1,362 Moroccan detainees were being held in flagrant violation of article 118 of the Geneva Convention that clearly stipulated that prisoners of war should be liberated and repatriated without delay following the end of the hostilities.
A cease-fire had been in force since 6 September 1991 and those who held the detainees and Algeria, where the detention camps were located, continued to ignore their right to freedom and prolonged their suffering. Algeria had deprived the 1,362 detainees not only of their fundamental rights but of their most basic rights to life, to freedom and their rights to meet their children, spouses and parents. In other words, Algeria had deprived them of hope.
SANELA AVDIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said that six years after the Dayton Agreement, the problem of missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina remained a most complex question both politically and in humanitarian terms. There were still 25,000 missing persons in the country. The right of families to know the fates of their relatives was a fundamental right and was the most appropriate remedy for the victims. Bosnia and Herzegovina had attempted to define better the obligations of organizations and State institutions to provide information on mass grave sites. It would also be necessary to exchange information with other countries in the region. Five centres for collecting blood samples for testing the 24,500 missing persons had been established. A conference was also being planned to step up coordination between actors and society in the process of exhuming and identifying missing persons.
It was also hoped that the perpetrators of these crimes would be punished. If they were not punished, it would be difficult to imagine a real sense of reconciliation in the region. An appeal was made to potential donors to assist in this process, since the future of this work was critical for the region.
DARIA CAVE, of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said the NGOs associated with the organization were committed to the principles of the UN Charter and were united in unequivocally condemning and rejecting terrorism in all its forms. However, in the name of fighting terrorism, it was apparent that human rights were also being put at risk. Regrettably, actions taken by the UN Security Council had raised serious questions regarding respect for human rights. The Security Council was immediately convened after 11 September to enact stringent measures with a rigorous reporting mechanism to be applied by all countries.
In November 2001, the Council had instituted measures pertaining to the situation in Afghanistan to be applicable worldwide to a loosely defined category of individuals and entities accused of association with Osama bin Laden. The assets of a major Somali bank and business association, Al Barakat, were frozen. A range of persons connected to Al Barakat, living in different countries, were named and had their assets frozen. They were blocked from conducting any economic activity, including receiving salaries at bank accounts. It was a most serious matter as the Council by that action had set aside the core principles of due process that were the heart of the human rights concept and of democratic society.
BERNICE DUBOIS, of Coordination francaise pour le Lobby Europeen des Femmes, said that today in Nigeria, Amina Lawal was condemned to be buried alive up to the chest, then stoned to death for having a child without being married. The presumed father would of course not be condemned. What social protection took the lives of mothers of newborn children, guilty of having given birth to them? Today in Sudan, Abok Alfa Akok, an 18-year-old Christian woman of the Dinka tribe was condemned to death by stoning for adultery, even though the Sudanese Government always said that Sharia law applied only to Muslims. Today in Egypt, 23 persons suspected of homosexuality were judged by a Court of Exception and condemned to prison sentences with forced labour.
Today, the Holy See led a campaign in numerous countries against condoms, one of the best ways to combat AIDS, and it campaigned against sex education in thousands of scholastic institutions and health services managed by the Church. The Holy See attempted to impose a Catholic doctrine on States, in flagrant contradiction of the right to health.
BA BAOPING, of the United Nations Association of China, speaking on behalf of the China Disabled Person's Federation and the All China Women's Federation, said the representative of the United States Government had alleged that China remained a country of particular concern for restrictions on religious freedom. The true situation was as follows: in 1949 when the Republic was founded, the total number of Protestant believers in Mainland China was 700,000. By 2001, there were over 15 million baptized Protestants, 16,000 churches, 32,000 meeting points, over 2,000 ordained pastors, and around 4,000 graduates from seminaries and Bible schools. In its statement a few days ago, the United States delegation had accused 10 countries on their human rights situations. This was not defending human rights but initiating confrontation among countries.
Concerning the Falun Gong, this movement was full of fallacy, full of hatred towards society and also hatred towards those who had different understandings of the Falun Gong. Falun Gong members were instructed to attack those who believed in different religions.
MARIE-EMMANUELLE CROZET, of Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l'Homme, said the Democratic Republic of the Congo had been in a state of war since 2 August 1998. The Government, supported by Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe, was battling the rebel movements supported by Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi. Other armed groups were also involved. Massive violations of human rights, crimes against humanity, crimes of war and violations of international humanitarian law were being committed against the population with impunity. The people of Hema and Lendu of the district of Ituri found themselves today used as instruments of political expansion. There was pillage of natural resources by different rebel factions.
The situation in Kisangani, where the Rwandan and Ugandan armies were fighting in contravention of international humanitarian law, should be denounced. In June 2000, more than 8,000 bombs had been dropped on the town and 1,500 had died while 3,000 were wounded. In addition, 1,500 houses had been destroyed.

CORRIGENDUM

In press release HR/CN/02/37 of 12 April, the statement of the representative of Belarus on page 8 should read as follows:

VLADIMIR MALEVICH (Belarus) said that ensuring the right to freedom of expression for everyone was one of the major criteria of a democratic society. Regrettably, current reality was such that even in countries with deep democratic traditions there were many people who claimed that they were unable to fully exercise their right to freedom of expression. Belarus was undertaking targeted measures aimed at setting up effective mechanisms to protect the rights of individuals to freedom of expression. This concerned, first of all, freedom of the mass media. The legislative basis created in Belarus in the field of mass media complied with commonly accepted democratic standards. At present, 1,225 periodicals, including 784 newspapers were registered in the country. Over two thirds of the printed mass media publications were non-governmental. This guaranteed the pluralism of opinions in the society and freedom of expression.


* *** *